Blagojevich Scandal

By Fallon Hogerty

As the editors of the Chicago Tribune sent the December 10 newspaper to print, I imagine that they couldn’t help but smirking. “Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich Arrested on Federal Charges,” read the morning’s headline in big, black, bold typewrite.
You can almost sense a bit of spite or mockery in the headline’s accompanying article by the journalist describe the governor as “well-coifed” while en route to jail. The article is universally unflattering, portraying both Rod Blagojevich and his wife, Patricia, to be money-hungry outlaws
(http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/la-na-blagojevich10-2008dec10,0,4641479.story).
Gov. Blagojevich is accused of trying to sell “state jobs, state contracts and regulatory favors.” The governor reportedly tried to get Chicago Tribune reporters who wrote articles criticizing him in exchange for a promise to help fund the Tribune Company purchase Wrigley Field. Most shocking of all, he is accused of attempting to sell the senate seat in exchange for a cabinet post, a $300,000 dollar job for himself and/or his wife, or an ambassadorship. The Chicago Tribune said Blagojevich was recorded via wiretap saying, “"I've got this thing and it's [expletive] golden and uh, uh, I'm not just giving it up for [expletive] nothing," he said two days later, according to the affidavit.” Illinois’ first lady even joined in on some of the fun. "Hold up that [expletive] Cubs [expletive]," she is quoted as saying in the background as her husband talked on the phone, authorities alleged. "[Expletive] them,"
 reports the Tribune (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/illinois/chi-patti-blagojevich-081210-ht,0,5336225.story).
Illinois residents are outraged. The state is tired of corrupt politicians. Blagojevich’s arrest comes at the heels of the scandal of Illinois’ previous governor, George Ryan, who was accused of racketeering and fraud. Blagojevich’s administration had been clouded in scandal since he took office. A friend’s status on facebook seems to sum up the overall feeling: “Claire Orfanos Hated Blagojevich Way Before it Was Cool.”
In a time where modern newspapers are failing, one should still not underestimate the power of the media. Those who fail to heed this warning will wind up being ripped apart just like Blagovich when the media comes out on top (and they always do), like (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped1217goldbergdec17,0,2726311.story) when a Tribune reporter says, “…The Chicago Tribune [is] Christmas Pony Happy because Blago tried to strong-arm Trib ownership to fire members of the editorial board. Instead, Trib editors will get to have a big tailgate party outside Blago's cell window,” and my favorite personal insult, “Blago's hair not only appears bulletproof but seems to confirm reports that he is the human model for Playmobil action figures.”
You know, we learned in class that politicians must have thick skin in order to survive the rough-and-tumble world of politics. Additionally, they must be competitive and believe themselves to be superior leaders. As a result, the politician may lack some other “softer” personality traits, like sensitivity. It seems like this is the case with Blagojevich.
What’s next for the indicted Illinois Governor and his wife (whom the Tribune referred to as “Lady MacBeth,” all in good fun, of course)? Certainly not a cushy salary or a cabinet post. Despite the heinous, clearly corrupt conversations caught on wire-tap, Governor Blagojevich has yet to resign. I find this guy’s ego and judgment to be unbelievable. Hopefully, he will be the last corrupt politician in Illinois.

Hillary as Secretary of State

By Cassie McDonagh

Barack Obama recently appointed Hilary Clinton to the position of Secretary of State. This decision was shocking to many people. In my opinion, however, this decision was a very wise and monumental one. This decision passed the job of Secretary of State to another woman. As one of the most important cabinet positions the person who is given that job must be very educated and intelligent. This job is one that has become increasingly important due to the elevated terrorist alerts in the country.
The fact that this job is being given to a woman says a lot about the progress this country is making. It shows that as a country we feel comfortable giving such an important job to a woman. America is a country based on diversity, and our government is making great strides in starting to represent this. With a black president and a female secretary of state the diversity of our countries population is being equally represented.
Recently, Hilary Clinton met with Condoleezza Rice to discuss the job and the duties entailed. They discussed general policies and the way that the department worked. The two women showed great respect for each other and Rice said that she was very pleased with Obama’s choice. Hilary Clinton was given this position because she is intelligent and can be trusted with the important matters that come along with the job.
Another thing that is really great about Obama’s choice is that it shows the positive side of politics. Obama and Clinton had such a vicious run for candidacy that it created the illusion that they were arch enemies. Both parties said incredibly mean things about each other and brought about a very negative feeling. By choosing Clinton, Obama showed that he had the best interest of the country at heart. He proved that even though they went through a very rough patch he could see past personality differences and choose a cabinet member based on intelligence and competence.
I think that this reflects upon a lot of what we discussed in class and the results of our surveys. Overall our class voted to not reform politics. Obama was not forced to choose Clinton, he was being controlled by government regulations. Obama chose Clinton because it was the right thing to do. Obama proved that politics can be humane and fair without being controlled by the government



http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/09/clinton.rice/?iref=mpstoryview

The Feedback Loop

In reference to the feedback loop between news, politics, and entertainment, I have some hypotheses. I believe itsuch things as celebrity endorsements or "soft appearances" on late night talk shows can reinforce a decision that has already been made, or perhaps contribute to the buzz surrounding a candidate, but I don't think people are flipping through tabloids to see who Brad and Angie are endorsing only to rush out to the polls before voting for Barrack goes out of style.

Celebrities endorse candidates for various reasons one being because they have similar stances on issues. Yes, celebrities may be subjective in disseminating these issues but I think we falsely glorify objectivity sometimes. And subjectivity in the realm of entertainment does not necessarily lead to ignorance on issues.

I came across an article about Jon Stewart by Lance Bennett that found that people who watched late night comedy, and in particular the Daily show, are more informed about politics than non-viewers. Stewart admits that he is not a journalist and is not committed to the objectivity that defines this field yet his viewers are primarily young people and they are in fact, still informed.

The subjectivity and dare I say bias that gets expressed in "pop-culture" communication like the daily show, the Dark Knight, and Oprah only make sense to those who approach them with previous knowledge. The political undertones in batman would fly over the politically ignorant like the dark knight himself.

Endorsement functions in a similar way. We must be careful in assuming the magic bullet theory in these circumstances. Endorsements simply act as one component of campaigns and while I do agree that many politicians are harnessing a more public relations approach, endorsements simply act as one minor component. Oprah is powerful but she didn't make Barrack into a superstar, or pop-culture icon. He captivated audiences with speeches and mobilized supporters through his exceptional use of new media, McCain did not.

Young people identified more with Obama because of his stances on issues. Young people tend to be more liberal (although I am well aware of the exceptions Erin, I know you are out there!) and Republicans were not all that popular as evidence of Bush's low approval rating.

I don't give credit to celebrity endorsements as an independent influence because I think people vote for a variety of reasons most of which have to do with deeper convictions than celebrity. whether those convictions are tied to coming from a conservative family, having a loved one in Iraq, or simply identifying with the a candidate who is in opposition to an unfavorable candidate. thee convictions however result in some sort of knowledge about the issues and where candidates stand on these issues.

Hollywood and Politics

Since the presidential election of 1920, politicians have been using Hollywood celebrity endorsements in an attempt to influence voters on their decision. In an article by Vidya Rao, she discusses whether celebrity endorsements really persuade voters on election or are seen as just an opinion. A poll conducted last September resulted in 78 percent of people thinking celebrity endorsements would have no affect on the election and 9 percent resulting in the fact that it might discourage people to vote for that endorsed candidate. The study showed that “Celebrity endorsed campaigns…helped young people believe in their impact on the political system.” Because of celebrity endorsements, young voters, especially first time voters, have become more politically educated on the issues that were discussed during the election. After Oprah Winfrey publicly and financially endorsed Obama, the Obama camp thought that appearances with Oprah would bring in 10,000 new volunteers helping the campaign. That guess was correct. At a rally in South Carolina in December 2007, the rally had to be moved to a football stadium because 29,000 people showed up to hear Oprah with Obama speak.

Nevertheless, David Jackson, a political science professor at Bowling Green State University, says, “We know celebrity endorsements matter. Getting people to admit it- that’s another story.” Jackson thinks that celebrity endorsements most likely influenced undecided voters or people that had not planned to vote. “It would be a rare occasion for a McCain supporter to turn around and become an Obama supporter just because a celebrity told him to do so,” says Jackson. “Most people said they were more influenced by their friends and family when deciding who to vote for,” says Assistant Director of the Center for Consumer Research, Natalie Wood.

However, not only is the election using Hollywood, but Hollywood is using the election to keep their movies booming. Many films that were created recently have had plots relating to politics or have had a political undertone. Many filmmakers are hoping that their movies might help educate people and maybe even change policy debates. Comedian and producer, Michael Moore, is “betting that the presidential election season will make moviegoers more inclined to sample their topical stories.” Some film creators are even holding out on releasing their movies in theatres until it was closer to the election, however with all the hype of the election, filmmakers worry that audiences may be burned out on politics.

Everyone uses Hollywood. People use celebrities to get fashion ideas and even copy hairstyles from them. So, it’s not a big deal that politicians use them as well. Whether of not people want to come clean about it, celebrity endorsements do matter. They may not persuade you to change your vote, but they do get your attention. Politicians benefit from Hollywood and Hollywood benefits from politics. Everyone is happy, right?

2012: Palin's Year

Paris Hilton wants to paint the White House Pink. Elle Woods is changing the legislature with pink heels and upbeat attitude. Women in Hollywood’s spotlight continue to poke fun at a woman holding authority in the White House, but what does this mean for women who really do want to make a difference in politics? Are they supposed to succumb to the stereotype or put all of their energy into proving the stereotype wrong?
In a recent article by Roger Simon of the Politico team (an assortment of journalists with the collective goal to inform the public about politics), the issue of Sarah Palin’s likelihood of running for president in 2012 was explored. Whether or not McCain won the presidency in 2008 was irrelevant because due to his age, he was unlikely to be able to remain president for a second term.
According to Simon, the subjects Palin was scrutinized for during the 2008 election, such as her expensive wardrobe, will be long forgotten by the 2012 election. She realizes that her gender would inconvenience her campaign no matter what she wore because of the double standard society presents her with. Just as Hillary Clinton before her, Palin will have to overcome prejudice if she closes to run for the presidency, but she welcomes the challenge claiming she will “plow through that because we are embarking on something greater than that, than allowing that double standard to affect us,” (Politico). America has proven to look past skin color with this past election, so why can’t gender also be overlooked? Palin has at least one thing going in her favor: her popularity among the Republican Party. She is willing to push for the more “traditional conservative values,” which Republicans will be in favor of in the next election.
I agree with Simon’s support of Palin as having a solid support system with the Republican Party, but I also think she has the potential to benefit from some of Obama’s campaigning strategies. By learning from his success, Palin has the ability to gain support from one of the rapidly growing demographics: America’s youth. Obama’s victory taught us that being able to relate to a younger audience is a key factor in being perceived as a “trendy” president. Through text messaging, several celebrity endorsements, and his physical attractiveness, Obama was able to create an image that was appealing to Americans, an image which defined him as a candidate who was connected with the people. Palin possesses many similar characteristics, which may help her to gain the respect and the support of US citizens in 2012. Her attention to physical detail and youthful and energetic attitude may prove to be appealing in the future because it will be a fresh new interpretation to the presidency. She also appealed to America’s youth with her sense of humor about Tina Fey impersonating her on Saturday Night Live. In one skit, Tina Fey plays Sarah Palin as she discusses the difficulties of being a woman in politics. It is difficult for women to exude humor in politics since it is not expected of them, but her ability to have a sense of humor gives her a genuine quality which is valued by Americans.
Sarah Palin has an approachable personality which is similar to the female stereotype Hollywood portrays. By having the courage to not let this stereotype define her, but instead just by being herself, charming to Americans and that is the first step in winning the vote.