Dressed for Success

The Republican National Committee (RNC) has been criticized since it was discovered that they had provided $150,000 for Governor Palin and her family for new outfits and getting their makeup and hair done on the campaign trail. However, it was an expense that was just a part of the overall campaign image. In order to be a vice presidential candidate, she needs to look like one. As she has previously stated, she is not from Washington DC, rather she is just a normal “Joe six-pack” and hockey mom. So when it was announced that Governor Palin would be the running mate of Senator John McCain, stylist, Jeff Larson, was hired to help her get ready for it. She has received negative press regarding her new style, which includes designer clothes as well as a hair stylist and makeup artist, because it is thought to conflict with her image, but that is not true. Governor Palin was given these tools to simply transform her physical look into one suitable for that of a vice presidential nominee.

As a woman in a presidential election, there is a lot of emphasis is put on style. She needed to appear fashionable, but not over the top. Had she chose to not do this, she would still be criticized by the same people that spent their time criticizing Senator Clinton’s pantsuits when she was running for office. Her family was included in this transformation, because they too needed to meet the standards that Washington DC has for them, but Governor Palin and her family have not at all changed and they are still just your normal “Joe six-pack” Americans. Further ridicule has come from a news report in Alaska, which stated that she used Alaska state funds for her kids travel, but that very well could have been a part of her campaign expenses when she was running for governor, as her children and family go almost everywhere she does. Senator John and Cindy McCain have fallen under scrutiny as well, for allegedly spending a total of about $314,000 on an outfit and a pair of shoes, which was not funded by the RNC, but by their personal finances. Every American has the right to spend their money the way that they want, so if they want to spend theirs in clothes, why should that affect the campaign in the slightest?

The clothes that Governor Palin received during the campaign were intended to go to charitable causes after the election took place. In fact, number of the outfits she wore have already been donated. Due to the demeaning commentary she has received regarding the $150,000 that was used to make the transformation of her and her family, she has made a point to show up at a number of rallies that took place after the incident, in clothes that she owns and therefore were not given to her by the RNC. Governor Palin has also appeared less made up as she has not been sporting her signature hair style lately, but rather it has just been down and simple. These actions seem to have been pleasing to people as it physically reflects her “Joe six-pack” image, which is ironic as Americans want Senator Clinton to do the exact opposite.

A spokeswoman for Governor Palin, Tracey Schmitt, said, "With all of the important issues facing the country right now, it's remarkable that we're spending time talking about pantsuits and blouses…,” which in turn makes a very good point. There is less then a week until the election and Americans need to shift their focus from what Governor Palin is wearing to whether or not she would make a good vice president. If elected, it is not what she or Senator McCain are wearing that will make them great leaders in the White House, but rather how they deal with issues such as the war in Iraq and the economy.

Why Talk Radio is Conservative

I've found an article that offers a better answer than mine to Fallon's question in class about why talk radio is a conservative form of political communication. The article, published in 2004, can be found here.

The quick summary is this: After disputing existing explanations of talk radio's right-leaning ideology, the author Mayer argues that talk radio is conservative for three reasons: 1. There are more conservatives in US society as a whole, so talk radio is created to address the larger audience; 2. Conservatives do not feel represented by what they perceive as a liberal mainstream media, so they need the alternative of talk radio more than liberals (I believe kudos go to Erin for offering this explanation in class); 3. Liberal audiences are segmented by race, gender, & ethnicity more than conservatives--therefore, these diverse groups would be less likely to listen to the same radio programming than a more homogenous (i.e., less identity driven) conservative audience.

I think the second and third reasons are pretty sound, although I'm not sure that #1 is valid any more under the current political climate.

Don't Let the Media Decide in '08

With the next Presidential Election only days away, most of us would consider ourselves aware and up to date on the important issues. We think we know enough about the state of the economy, candidate’s tax plans, and the war. We can recall countless stories about Palin’s wardrobe, Biden’s gaffe’s, Obama’s questionable friends, and McCain’s buddy, Joe the plumber. In picking the next leader of the most powerful country in the world, can this really be all the issues we should be thinking about?

With a 24 hour news cycle and the public’s demand for more entertainment in their news, its no wonder trivial topic have dominated this year’s election. Few people could tell that the next president may have the chance to choose three Supreme Court justices. This is a huge responsibility, not to mention a decision that could affect the country for year and years to come. Remember Supreme Court Justices serve life terms. The longest serving justice served nearly 37 years. That means our future president could make a decision that will affect our judicial system for decades, but no one is giving this issue any attention. Can anyone tell me where the two candidates stand on the issue of judicial nominations? Probable not, but Barack Obama and John McCain have very different views on the issue.

Of course the selection of Supreme Court Justices is not the only issue being over looked by the media this year. What about illegal immigration, trade and globalization, the debate over a missile defense system, or even abortion? These issues have been forgotten because the media determined the public was not interested, but they are all important issues that could play a major role in our future.

The problem with media coverage stems from the Agenda Setting function of the media. As discussed in class, the media does not tell us what to think, but tell us what to think about. When the public allows the media to have this power, the media can then determine the most important issue of the election. For example, the media has reported constantly about the state of Wall Street and the economy. John McCain openly admitted the economy was not his strongest suit. Therefore, Barack Obama gains an advantage as the candidate with more knowledge on the economy. What if, however, foreign relations were playing a bigger role or if missile defense was as important as it was in the Reagan years? The more experienced candidate on this issue would obviously be John McCain. The election could look very different if it were not for the media deciding the important issues.

While the media is the major culprit in this mess, they are not the only guilty party. The American public is also responsible. It was the public’s demand for entertainment that led to such sensationalism in news coverage. Now, Americans must make it a point to inform themselves on the important issues. It is going to take more work than just turning on the TV and watching broadcast news. To understand the true issues Americans must dig deep by listening to all sides, get information from numerous news outlets, and determine the important issues for themselves.

Are Negative Attacks still working?

Being a week away from the most influential Election Day in history, political anaylsts wonder which presidential candidate will win over the undecided states. However, anaylsts are now thinking that all the attacks on Senator Barack Obama by Senator John McCain will hurt McCain in the polls and it has, thus by havign recent polls continuously showing Obama int he lead. On a CNN poll of polls taken Monday shows Obama leading 51 percent to 43 percent with McCain and 6 percent undecided. Author of the book "Independent Nation," John Avalon says "McCain should go big at the end. But if he wants to win over independents and undecideds, he should not go big by going negative. That's the worst thing he could do." However, Patricia Murphy thinks that it is a good idea for the McCain camp to raise doubts about Obama on the home stretch to Election Day. 

In past political history, negative advertisements have seemed to swade audiences. They have worked in governor elections all the way to the nation presidential campaigns. However, with Obama constantly being picked on by McCain and will polls showing what people think about it-- are negative advertisements and attacks on their way out?

Joe the Plumber is Clogging up the Air Waves

The third and final presidential debate was Senator John McCain’s final chance to get the support of the undecided voters in America. With Senator Barrack Obama leading the Gallup polls, McCain really needed to stir things up. During the debate, while discussing policies, both candidates interjected the words “Joe the Plumber” into their arguments concerning taxation. This caused the news of the following day to focus more on those three words than any other portion of the important debate.

The issue of taxes along with education, foreign policy, negative advertisements, health care, and how McCain is not Bush, are just some of the things the two nominees for president discussed in the final 2008 debate. Due to the current state of the economy, many people are concerned about the money they have and how the new president will approach taxing their income. When discussing this important issue, both candidates made reference to “Joe the plumber.”

Joe Wurzelbacher is a plumber from Ohio who is interested in purchasing the plumbing business that he works for. Wurzelbacher approached Sen. Obama on the campaign trail and had a conversation with him about his proposed tax plan. Sen. Obama explained to Wurzelbacher that he believes it is a smart choice to tax the wealthy individuals who can afford it and cut taxes for Americans who need a break.

Under his tax plan, Obama says 95 percent of workers and their families who earn less than $250,000 annually, will be receiving some sort of tax break and low income people who are looking to save money and allow their savings account to grow will also receive tax cuts. The portion of Obama’s tax plan Wurzelbacher is most concerned with is Obama’s plan to “ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure [the restoration of] fairness and… fiscal responsibility.”

The business “Joe the plumber” wants to purchase brings in an average income greater than $250,000 each year. Wurzelbacher is worried that by buying this pluming business, he will incur heavy taxation under Senator Obama’s plan and he is right.

The main idea behind Senator Obama’s plan is that people at the top of the income bracket who are making a lot of money can afford to be taxed a bit more so their wealth can be redistributed to those who are having a harder time financially. The argument on the other side, one that Senator McCain stands behind, is that if people are being taxed more, it makes the next dollar they earn worth less, which would then make people not want to grow their businesses or put in more time at work.

During the debate, for those watching, it became a game to figure out which of the two candidates would utter the, now famous words, “Joe the plumber,” next. At the end of the hour and a half long debate, the “Joe the plumber,” was said more than 24 times between the Obama and McCain. All Wurzelbacher was trying to do when he asked Sen. Obama a question in Ohio, was further educate himself of the candidates policy.

Now that the debate is over, “Joe the plumber” is getting more media attention than the policies themselves, something he most likely did not want to happen. While pundits and national news stations like CNN, CNBC, and FOX News just to name a few, are taking time to discuss the actual issues and policies brought up in the debate, one could argue that far too much attention has been given to Joe and more so, the candidates use of “Joe the plumber.”

Being as close to the election as we are, political pundits and analysts should be focusing a bit more on both candidates strengths and weaknesses, giving the public an objective analysis, addressing key moments that allow the public to know more about what each candidate stands for. Instead of the media analyst focusing on things like this, they decided to put a lot of emphasis on “Joe the plumber” and played a large part in swaying public reaction for the next day.

While the use of the term “Joe the plumber” is not necessarily a gaffe, one could argue that it brings about a weak side of debating. The fact that the media latches on to unimportant things brought about by the debate and over emphasizes them, causes the public to focus on those moments rather than analyzing the policies of either candidate. It could be said that “Joe the plumber” helped stress the importance on the tax policies of either candidate, but the incessant media coverage of this man has clearly over shined the good that the use of his name could have brought about.

Twenty four hour media groups are aiming for entertainment and wasting precious air time with stories about Wurzelbacher. The American people are being bombarded with meaningless information, news segments, and portions of the debate edited so they depict the candidates only making reference to “Joe the plumber.” Air time this close to the election should focus on an increased amount of fact checks, clips of the debate in their entirety, and opinions of well informed, objective pundits. The media still chooses to entertain instead of educate and I just do not understand it. I want to know about the candidates’ issues when I watch the news, not hear one line from a debate mentioned countless times.

Saturday Night Live, Fact or Fiction?

 Political satire is something that has always influenced politics.  It has been especially prevalent in the current election between presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain and Vice Presidential candidates Joe Biden and Sarah Palin. The popular late night television show, Saturday Night live, has been on extremely focused on creating satire based on the recent debates.

One of the shows most funny and relevant skit was based on the vice presidential debate. While viewers must realize that these skits are created mainly for entertainment purposes there is some truth that can be taken from them. The skit about the VP debate was not only hysterical but it also helped to raise some great points about the debate. During the skit Tina Fey (Sarah Palin) blatantly avoided the questions she was asked by Queen Latifah (Gwen Ifel).              While Tina Fey’s depiction was a gross exaggeration there was some truth to what she was doing. Sarah Palin did seem to avoid many of the questions she was asked during the debate. It seemed as if she would only answers the questions that she wanted to answer. Another good point that Tina Fey called attention to was the fact that Sarah Palin would in some way or another bring up topics that she was knowledgeable in and made her look better.

The skit also brought out some of the gaffes that Biden had during the debate. During the debate Joe Biden kept referring to John McCain as one of his good friends but still calling him out for being a poor leader. During the skit Jason Sudeikis (Joe Biden) often refers to the strong friendship he and McCain have but at the same time he speaks about how mentally unstable John McCain is. Sudeikis exaggerates this point by continuously bringing up the extremely strong feelings and admiration that Biden has for McCain but always countering it with a dig to McCain’s mental stability.

The skit also focuses on how each candidate addressed the issue of gay marriage. During the debate Joe Biden made it seem as if his administration was supportive of gay marriage by speaking about all the rights that gay couples should have. During the skit Sudeikis spends a considerable amount of time talking about how he supports gay rights but when asked about whether or not he supported gay marriage he responds with, “absolutely not.” Tina Fey addressed the issue that Sarah Palin talked about the fact that she simply “tolerated” gay people. Tina Fey says that she “ tolerates gay people with all her heart.” This makes fun of the fact that Sarah Palin insulted gay people during the debate.

The Saturday Night skits are obviously an extreme exaggeration. People should not take what is said during these skits seriously and should not base their political beliefs based on the opinions of the actors in Saturday Night Live. There is, however, some truth that should be taken from these skits. These skits are a great entertainment value and help make politics fun but the skits also have some sense of truthfulness. 

Debate 2008: Who will win?

With less than three weeks to Election Day and the final debate looming, tensions and stakes are running high for both candidates. National polls have recently shown a surge of support for Obama, and McCain needs a clear victory tonight to gain support among swing voters leaning towards an Obama vote in November. The big question to ask is how McCain will go about obtaining such a strong victory. Obama has been the “winner” of the last two debates as much as it is possible to win a debate. What will McCain do tonight?

Luckily for McCain, this debate will take place seated at a table with Obama and the moderator. There will be no awkward jetting around the room to address the audience. This is especially important considering Obama called McCain’s economic policies “erratic” and “lurching” – tying the shakiness McCain displayed at the last debate due to his age and war injuries to his own policies. However, the physical countenance and appearance of the candidates at this debate is less important. The debate is slated to deal with economic and domestic policies. Both men have recently laid out their economic plans, and now their job is to convince voters this plan is best for themselves and their families—something interested swing voters will pay attention to.

This debate is drawing huge attention—even Hillary Clinton plans to be in the audience. With the last two presidential debates some of the most highly watched of all time, this is a great time for the candidates to influence undecided voters and show their true mettle as they fetter questions about the future of our country—something both men clearly care deeply about. Though it has been suggested personal attacks might slip into some answers, this is the last chance for Obama and McCain to show off their policy knowledge to tens of millions of viewers.

Interestingly, with this third debate we don’t see any lowered or raised expectations from either candidate. Perhaps this is because Obama has been the winner in the last two debates. Obama aides have said that Obama is prepared, “calm” and “focused” for this last debate. The Obama campaign is setting the bar quite high, though analysts predict that as long as he avoids major gaffes, he will maintain his lead in the polls in the final run to the ballot booth.

McCain’s camp, on the other hand, has suggested that McCain is prepared to bring up Obama’s connections to Ayers and the ACORN scandal that is rocking Ohio. It seems McCain can only improve from his last two debates. He also needs to clearly set himself apart from Bush, especially on domestic policy. And while he’s no Biden in terms of gaffes (forgive me, but the man recently referred to a “Biden Administration” at a campaign rally), McCain has had a few knowledge and temperament gaffes in the last two debates that he cannot afford to repeat.

Tomorrow we will know if McCain was able to turn things around for his campaign and gain swing voters. Be sure to watch tonight to see if analysts are right! Also be sure to keep an eye out for special requests about the set up of the debate. For instance, each candidate will have an air conditioning vent above him to avoid looking sweaty. It’s good the future leaders of our country were able to agree on these stringent, important conditions. :)

Also, please take my senior comp survey! It’s about YouTube in the upcoming presidential election.

How long until we're out of this economic crisis?

With the proposed $700 billion bailout plan, it needs time to be put into action. As much as we would like to think things can happen overnight, it’s just not possible. The whole country, as well as other countries overseas, is in a state of panic over how this plan is going to be passed and how it is going to be funded. The money has to come from somewhere, and people have to trust their elected government officials that they will enact this plan to help our economy as quickly as possible. Even though consumers are definitely starting to cut back on costs and expenses, it needs to be something that remains stable until we fix this recession because right now is only the beginning.

Today, stocks were fluctuating despite the emergency rate cut by the Federal Reserve. Dow Jones industrials were at times falling more than 200 points or rising more than 100 points, thus illustrating its instability right now. Consumers need to be aware of these issues and that banks are going to be very reluctant when it comes to lending out money because they have to wonder if they will ever see their money again. One will not see changes of interest rates immediately because they take long periods of time to work themselves out.

In order for things to begin to get better, job losses and high unemployment will need to show an improvement. Also, the credit markets need to start working more normally before the economy can even think about becoming more stable.

Investors are buying anything they can consider safe so they know their money is secure due to the uncertainty in the economy; however, prices are skyrocketing. For example, the price of gold went from $19.90 to $901.90!!

Under McCain’s plan to help boost the economy, he wants to spend $300 billion to buy out “underwater” homeowners at the original value of their mortgages. He wants to show that he is different than President Bush and Senator Obama, but Obama has backed similar efforts in Congress. He recently stressed the issue that the government buying mortgages directly should have a very important role in the Treasury's $700 billion rescue efforts as well. McCain’s plan was not very clear, but according to Business Week, he said “the government would buy the mortgages from banks and investors at the original value of the loan.” He then wants to give homeowners the new mortgage.

But do we think this is a logical decision? I don’t think this will be a very successful plan because people will just choose to stop paying their mortgages if he is going to pay for them. As a result, we will end up with more and more fees for the government. The people who worked hard to be able to pay for their mortgage are going to be the ones hurt in the end because they will still be paying their own mortgages while the government pays for the ones who messed up and got themselves into a hole. Is this fair for all citizens? No; therefore, this is something that is going to keep us going around in circles and won’t help in the progress of getting us out of this recession because citizens will be upset and continuously fighting the proposed solutions.

Second Debate Video

In response to Fallon's question and anyone else interested in still watching the debate, CNN.com has the video available for streaming here. It's easier to find if you click on the "Most Popular" tab. You need to search for it a bit. It's in three parts.

It's the economy, stupid

When Bill Clinton began his 1992 campaign for the Presidency against incumbent George H.W. Bush, the future looked bleak. President Bush had recently set the record for the highest approval rating ever recorded among the American public (In March 1991, 90% of all Americans approved his presidency just one week after he invaded Iraq). But by election day, Clinton had reeled in enough votes to win the race. So what happened in between? A recession. Americans preferred Clinton's economic plan to Bush's, as Bush's would have brought more of the same. In the 1992 election, economy trumped foreign policy. 

As the phrase goes, history repeats itself. A poll taken between September 15-21 of this year shows that 54% of Americans see the economy as "one of the two most important issues for the Government to address." I believe that if the same Americans were polled again today, that percentage would be even higher. To think that one year ago (October 2007) only 13% of Americans saw the economy as the most important issue! So, what issue did Americans think was more important at that time? If you guessed the Iraq war, you're correct (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=806).  I think it's safe to say that in the 2008 election, the economy will once again trump foreign policy. 

The economy was the topic for most of last night's debate. McCain claims his proposal will fix the failing U.S. economy. McCain wanted Americans to know that this new proposal is his alone, saying "it's not Sen. Obama's proposal, it's not President Bush's proposal." Obama  blamed the state of the economy on President George W. Bush's "failed economic policies of the last eight years, strongly promoted by President Bush and supported by Senator McCain..." 

Reports from papers around the country including the New York Times and the Dallas Morning News agreed that McCain struggled while speaking about the economy but was much smoother than his opponent when speaking about Iraq. "Mr. McCain again seemed particularly comfortable when the questioning turned to foreign policy, suggesting that his opponent was inexperienced and lacked judgment in issues like how to deal with Pakistan," says Adam Nagourney of the New York Times. Like  President George H.W. Bush, foreign policy is McCain's strong point. 

During last night's debate Senator Obama said "I think everybody knows that we are in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression." Is this true? Well, no one knows yet (never mind what the 24-hour cable news channels say -- they could make you believe that the world is ending if they tried). But here's what I know for sure: Like Bill Clinton, Obama is asserting that McCain's policies will be more of the same. By continuing to associate Senator McCain with President Bush's failed economic views, Obama has a pretty good chance of winning this election. 

Tribune Article About Friday's Class

If you have not seen it yet, the article about our VP debate class discussion was published in Saturday's South Bend Tribune and can be found here.

Sarah Palin as Elle Woods?

With the highly-anticipated vice presidential debate tonight, here's a thought provoking column about Sarah Palin. I thought the class might find it interesting. Feel free to comment if you wish.

Wanted: Leadership

This week, American financial industry has possibly changed in ways that no one could have imagined due to mis-guided regulations and our troublesome economy; which also remains as the campaign's top issue. This is a real test for both Senator Barack Obama and John McCain. I understand they have busy campaigning schedules, but how they react can release vibes on how they will view our economy when in office. Voters have a chance to see their true flaws, opinions and hopefully, leadership.

Reading the Washington Post, I came across an interesting blog called, "Bailout Fallout: What Should McCain and Obama Do Next?" written by Chris Cilliza. We know for a fact that Obama and McCain do not see eye to eye on the economy. However, both are equally fighting to prove America they are the answers to these economic problems. But are these two candidates truly making their leadership abilities shine by doing the right thing? I believe both Obama and McCain have NOT shown leadership and are NOT connected to what Americans want or think we need. One of these Presidential candidates should stand up and propose a short term solution that does not put taxpayers dollars at risk. We need true leadership! We need a leader that we can trust, believe, and follow. We need a leader that can conduct business not as NORMAL but for the good of the American people, not for the good of their political party. A true leader can restore our faith in capitalism and free trade. We need a leader that can optimize the best financial minds and resources and propose a simple plan that is good for the people not politics.

Obama and McCain have been making appearances on shows, town visits, and have also been producing new proposals for this "crisis." Several new advertisements since the beginning of this week have been aired in response to the financial rescue plan. "Barack Obama was first out of the gate this morning with a two-pronged approach: a new proposal to increase the cap on federally insured bank deposits from $100,000 to $250,000 and a new two-minute television ad in which he seeks to make the case that he, and not John McCain, is ready and able to lead the country out of its current financial morass" (Cilliza). I think it is beneficial that both Presidential candidates have been working closely with President Bush by putting forth input of direction and ideas that make sense for the people and not politics as usual. Both parties continue to bash each other out on who is on top of the game. Ignorant voters may think that Obama will improve the economic situation, but his plans for higher taxes and bigger government will only lead to disaster. McCain is not much better but at least he is willing to reduce taxes and government spending.

As for right now, Obama and McCain should keep in mind that the economy affects our country as a whole and is a worry no matter what social class one is in. Chris Cilliza advises McCain to 1. Go negative, 2. Stay out of Washington, 3. Persuade privately, 4. Leave Congress out of it, and 5. Just continue on and hope for a solution for this issue. I do not agree with this! McCane could show his leadership by NOT siding with Congress and the Senate, and make a proposal good for the people. Lead and we will follow! As for Obama, he should settle down a as polls have shown him ahead in important areas and has increased his platform for change even more. I think this information should make Obama not to settle down, but keep the energy moving in his campaign. I also do not believe or trust polls in general. Polls are constantly changing and can give little background information of sources.

This election continues to get more exciting each week. Our job as American citizens is to pay close attention to each side and their effort put forth for the people's best interest. Both Obama and McCain plan to meet in Washington for the Senate vote.

The Talk of Change and a Forceful New

Youth is something that everyone in this society embraces. The thought of a young, new, vibrant person in the White House gives voters the impression of fresh and strong policies, concepts and changes being carried out more efficiently and effectively. Age can often times be a negative connotation, as it was for Senator John McCain at the beginning of his presidential campaign. Obama’s campaign originally thrived and pushed this idea of “youth” in the White House. But can’t this age also prove that he has more experience?

Senator Obama of Illinois initially used his youth as an advantage over McCain. Obama’s slogan of change pushed McCain as an “old boy” and appointed himself as that breath of “fresh air.” Obama also mocked McCain’s experience of twenty six years in congress. But why? Doesn’t this mean that McCain has seen it all in congress and knows how to handle all types of situations? Isn’t it possible that due to his age McCain could have learned from all of the mistakes dating far back in our nation’s history and now knows how to respond and lead our nation through it?

Sensing that our nation truly does embrace youth, McCain sought it best to elect a female from Alaska as his Vice President running mate. The young Sarah Palin is now taking away that one extra “benefit” it seemed Obama used to praise himself over McCain and attract a particular voter. Not only does Sarah Palin have the youth that Obama does, but she also is a woman. This could potentially win over some more votes because that is a significant CHANGE for our government.

As we discussed in class, gender adaptivness is a major factor in campaign communication with male and female candidates. Since women often times have to prove themselves as being able to handle the heat of politics and the possibilities of harsh and crude commentary, they need to possess and use a certain sense of aggressiveness. Palin proved that she is certainly aggressive and on top of her game when she made known her youth against Obama’s vice presidential candidate, Joe Biden. Claiming that she “she’s been hearing about his senate speeches since she was in second grade,” was a shot back at Obama’s claims that McCain was so to speak, “out of date.” She also proved more aggressive in her following statement of the video segment, making another attack on Senator Biden comparing his strong confidence for their debate Thursday, with his confidence that the University of Delaware was going to be Ohio State in football-which was inaccurate.

With McCain’s age stands strong his wisdom and experience. The addition of Sarah Palin to his campaign was a great choice because our society does embrace youth, and the vibrant energy that comes with it. Palin certainly possesses that energy and proves it with her aggressive side and personal attacks that are common and necessary for women on the campaign trail. The combination of experience, youth, and a woman VP on McCain’s 2008 Presidential Campaign rivals the “change” that the Senator Obama stands for-does it not?