Saint Mary's College-Political Communication

Comedic Relief In Politics

2009-01-14T10:31:00.000-08:00

Political cartoons have been used to portray politicians since the time of colonial America. Through political cartoons, viewers are able to gain a sense of politicians that they would not be able to get from simply hearing the politician speak or reading an article about the politician. Political cartoons often distort the image of a politician, whether is be in a positive way or a negative way. The humorous side of the political caricatures adds a great deal of fun to a campaign that often becomes dry and boring and loses the attention of voters. Debates appear so regulated and practiced in today’s society that they fail to fire up the candidates or the voters. The questions and answers are so structured and rehearsed in the televised debates that it fails to attract or excite the audience. Often times, humor draws attention back to a campaign and a lighter and more enjoyable way of viewing the candidates and their platforms.

Caricatures in which the artist exaggerates or distorts an aspect of the candidate have been part of political campaigns for a very long time. Often times, after a candidate is retired or deceased, caricatures create a lasting memory of the person, not always flattering as in the case of Lyndon Baines Johnson, when he permitted pictures of his scar from a recent surgery to appear on the front pages of the newspaper. One expects a little more dignity than that from the President of the United States. But then if one listens to Sarah Palin's comments, it is questioned how much dignity we find there. When a political debate is spent discussing the comparison of hockey moms and pit bulls, why would comedians and cartoonists not jump at the chance to mock such a comparison? Sarah Palin's style has given comedians and writer for late night talk shows the material they long for. Her rough and tough lifestyle is perfect for comedic programming and political cartoonists.

Although Sarah Palin has been used as the subject of many jokes for both comedians and political cartoonists since she joined the 2008 campaign, nearly every candidate that runs for a political office is used as the subject of jokes as well. Caricatures are used to form images of political candidates. Each of these candidates’ images is not only formed by their stances on particular subjects and political viewpoints, but these images are also formed by caricatures that are portrayed on television and through the newspapers. Just as celebrities’ images are formed from the gossip found in magazines, candidates’ images are formed from the caricatures created by comedians and political cartoonists. As discussed in Edward Rothstein’s article, the caricatures that are used to portray politicians are not truly accurate. Although these images are not accurate, they still remain in the minds of many Americans each day. Political caricatures such as the ones discussed in Rothstein’s article play an important role in political campaigns because they not only allow American citizens to express their beliefs about various candidates, but they allow each American citizen to take what they want away from the forms of media and form their own opinions.

Corruption: Nothing New to the State of Illinois

2009-01-14T10:24:00.000-08:00

Although Illinois is known for the city of Chicago and all of its attractions, it now seems to be known for something a little less appealing -- corrupt politics. Although recent news of Governor Rod Blagojevich has caused a great deal of discussion about the current corruption taking place in Illinois' government, many are unaware that Illinois has had a long history of corruption by both elected and appointed officials in the state. The corruption in the state of Illinois' politics began in the late 1800s.

At this time, a man by the name of Michael Cassius McDonald held great political power in the state of Illinois. McDonald began his career as a gambler and used his winnings to open his own gaming parlors and saloons around Chicago. As his wealth grew so did his political power. McDonald eventually became leader of the Chicago Democratic Organization, where he exchanged jobs for political support. It is said that McDonald had become so powerful that on his endorsement alone he could get men elected to high political office. In 1873, McDonald built "The Store" a large four-story saloon, boarding house, and gaming hall. The Store was known as "the unofficial City Hall" because much of the city's business was conducted on it's upper floors. A famous phrase, which was believed to have first been said by banker David Hannum, was allegedly attributed to McDonald. When an employee asked McDonald how they would ever keep The Store filled to turn a profit, McDonald allegedly responded "Don't worry about that. There's a sucker born every minute". Apparently Blagojevich believed McDonald's words in thinking that the United States government was a sucker and believing he could pull off these illegal acts.

According to the Sun-Times, 79 current or former Illinois, Chicago or Cook county elected officials had been found guilty of a crime since the year 1972. Although, just about five years ago, Illinois Governor George Ryan brought the debate of capital punishment to the table, his image was soon taken over by scandal. After great speculation of Ryan's administration, the government began to investigate into widespread corruption during his administration and this led to his retirement from politics in 2003 and eventual federal corruption convictions in 2006. Ryan entered federal prison on November 7, 2007, to begin serving a sentence of six years and six months for his wrongdoings. As of June 13, 2008, he is housed at the satellite prison camp in Indiana, serving the remainder of his sentence.

Clearly, corruption in politics is nothing new to the state of Illinois. After watching Governor George Ryan go to jail for his corrupt ways, it is unfortunate to think that the citizens of Illinois still could not manage to elect someone qualified to fit the job. With Illinois being known as "The Land of Lincoln", I think it can be assumed that President Lincoln would currently be embarrassed to have his name associated with the corruption of this state government. As a resident of Illinois for the twenty years of my life, I find it disheartening to see this corruption take place. I hope that the issue of such corruption in the Illinois government will get resolved and the citizens of my home state will join me in electing someone who can make change in a state that deserves much better.

Blagojevich Scandal

2008-12-30T10:04:00.000-08:00

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

2008-12-17T09:16:00.000-08:00

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

2008-12-10T12:40:00.000-08:00

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

2008-12-02T15:58:00.000-08:00

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

2008-12-01T15:44:00.000-08:00

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.

Palin For President

2008-11-28T11:19:00.001-08:00

Although the 2008 presidential elections just took place a couple of weeks ago, there is already talk of the 2012 presidential candidates. After President Obama fulfills his four years in office, people wonder what will be in store for America. There is speculation that although we have yet to see the positives and negatives of Obama as president, that he hopes to take on another term. There is also speculation that Sara Palin will take the ticket for the Republicans nomination. After the Republicans “weak” choice of Senator John McCain as there nominee, one must question if choosing Palin would be beneficial for the party as a whole. Throughout this semester, our class has discussed the role of females in political communication. After seeing how negatively the press and eventually the people responded to her throughout the campaign I have doubts on whether or not it would be in the Republicans best interest to nominate her if they really want to see a GOP riding in Air Force One.

Palin took harsh abuse from the media throughout her vice-presidential campaign. The media ridiculed her, mocked her and practically terrorized her on how she dressed, acted, spoke, winked, and also on her knowledge of policies and politics. The discussion of her wardrobe was truly baffling. Claims that a large portion of the campaign’s budget was allotted for Palin’s clothing alone terrified many people. The media talked about that story for weeks and negatively promoted the image of Plain as a large spender and questioned her ability to relate to the “Joe Six Packs,” “Joe the Plumbers” and the “Michelle I’m finally proud to be an American’s.” If Palin were to dress a different way and not look as polished and wear pant suits as Hilary Clinton did, she would be critiqued for that. One must question what the appropriate in-between dress code for women in politics is.

Palin would also be critiqued if she didn’t appear to be feminine as Hilary Clinton (a female presidential candidate) was. When Clinton didn’t respond with a smirk or a laugh to an innocent joke the media and people viewed her as inhumane, yet when Sarah Palin embraces her bubbly, high spirited and enthusiastic personality, and winks during a debate the media mocks her. This raises the awareness that women truly do get the brunt of the media.

Overall, the media plays a large part in the presidential election. With the media having such a negative impact on the Republican’s campaign in this past election, one must question if they will really consider nominating Sarah Palin for president. It seems as though the media has more to critique on female candidates making it questionable if and when America will be ready for a woman in the White House.

Considering the Relationship: Politics and New Media

2008-11-19T13:44:00.000-08:00

It has been argued that the internet has become a medium of the people. With you tube, bloggs, and infinite access to information it is hard to perceive the internet as another medium subject to favoritism and a concentration of power. In fact bloggers have entered the political landscape in full force bringing credibility and significance to civilian voices. But despite these advantages this seemingly democratic medium may infact be marginalizing voices. Are political bloggs diversifying the political landscape as a way or are they too guilty of marginalization? Is this a truly democratic medium or just a counter to other biased voices? Consider the following issues:

Who are we hearing and what is the quality of deliberation?
We discussed an article that articulated the idea of the internet as primarily a liberal medium. As a result we can make the assumption that much of the discussion and opinion put forth on blogs and uploaded on you tube reflect the liberal positions of their source. Additionally, the ease of access also brings issues of credibility and compromises the quality of deliberation. Anonymity breeds incivility further compromising quality debate.

Who has Access to Initiate Discussion?
As a liberal medium we have to consider that many voices are marginalized. It is not merely an issue of conservative and liberal though. Class and gender gaps contribute to homogenized participation. As a result issues pertinent to these groups are put on the backburner.

What will it mean for politics and specifically the conservative audience in the future?
Barack Obama is proof that whoever can harness this medium has a distinct advantage in political campaigns. Thus we will start to see a political landscape dominated by liberals and democrats? If the internet continues to function as a liberal medium and continues to be the determining medium we may very well see conservatives struggle to maintain a presence in politics.

The internet has by all means revolutionized society and especially politics as evidence of this past election. I think it is our duty to consider these questions and as communication scholars consider the impact of this medium in shaping political communication.

The Price of the Presidency

2008-11-19T06:36:00.000-08:00

In the wake of the Presidential election, it’s natural that Obama should be elated and excited to begin his next step which he spent 2+ years pursuing. But as with every major life change, the Presidency of the United States comes with a cost: Obama will likely have to give up his Blackberry. Giving up email and cell phones is by no means an unusual practice for our modern Commanders in Chief. George W. Bush signed off before he took office in 2000 and again in 2004 with a brief message to friends. I remember reading an old interview (I think it was in People magazine) where Bush confessed that he is really looking forward to emailing his friends once again.

While it seems silly to put a communications cap on the president, it might actually be for the best. In addition to security concerns, every president faces the Presidential Records Act which makes all correspondence during his (or one day, her) time in office—personal and professional—public knowledge. After Sarah Palin’s email account was hacked, Americans learned that our politicians in the spotlight can never be too careful.

By all accounts, Obama is quite attached to his Blackberry; indeed, he’s literally joined at the hip to the device. During important campaign meetings he has been known to surrender it to the middle of the table, sneaking a furtive glance when he sees he’s gotten messages or reminders. Aides say his messages are always correctly spelled and free of internet jargon. Would you expect anything less from the President Elect?

Even without his Blackberry, Obama isn’t going to be thrown into the dark ages. He seems intent on being the first president to have a laptop computer in the Oval Office so he can receive read-only emails. He’s also taking a very unique step and has promised to create a YouTube video version of the traditional Presidential radio address. Obama is reaching out to America on new media and hosting a modern-day Fireside Chat.

Interestingly, these videos will not only feature Obama, but will also make political stars out of policy advisors and Cabinet members as Obama seeks to go around the mainstream media and bring politics back to the people. He has promised these YouTube videos since early in his campaign. This promise—and any resulting videos—will be a great example of the changing face of the politics-media relationship in the face of viral media. Obama’s YouTube chats will have the advantage of being interactive and convenient for the audience. Obama will be able to control the flow of information and answer questions he’s not posed by reporters from traditional media. Moreover, these videos are something as yet unseen and untried by the President; they’ll likely be exciting and entertaining for this reason alone.

Given that Obama’s use of the internet was highly influential in the success of his campaign, his move to bring YouTube to the White House is unsurprising. Between the money he raised on myBO and making his name known through YouTube videos, Obama is clearly a candidate comfortable with the technology of the youth of America (who voted overwhelmingly for him). While giving up his Blackberry might be difficult for Obama, he won’t be incommunicado—he’s putting himself at the fingertips of America through YouTube.

Perhaps he really is a candidate of change after all.

All Rise for the First Lady!

2008-11-16T12:31:00.000-08:00

Since the first day of our Political Communication class, we have been discussing the popular topic of women in politics—especially those running for office. However, we did not talk much about the important role of The First Lady. Come January, Michelle Obama will become America’s next First Lady accompanying President-elect Barack Obama and their two daughters in the White House. Many have opinions on the certain credentials and requirements a First Lady should hold. The communication of the First Lady with the citizens is just as important as the communication with the President and the citizens. Michelle Obama, the first African American First Lady will put a fresh perspective on the expected.

“How the Obamas entertain, how they decorate, where their children will attend school -- ultimately all first family choices and activities add to an aggregate public impression. Historians now study first ladies as keenly as their husbands” (Merida). The First Lady should be familiar with current issues, how to handle the media, attend important political events, and have an active role in promoting their husband during the campaign. I admire Michelle’s intentions of balancing work and family, becoming a role-model for others, and volunteer when she can. The First Lady is not only the hostess of the White House, but they have a duty of involvement with the public.

Michelle is also not afraid to step up to thousands of people for spontaneous speeches. And even when Michelle is not speaking, she stands right behind Barack inches away from the podium to show her love and support. One can’t help marrying a timid wife, but I think having a first lady that is aggressive, confident, patriotic, and classy all at the same time is beneficial. Michelle is definitely outspoken and assertive, but many have criticized her for her lack of patriotism towards the United Sates of America. A few months ago, she made this comment:"For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country." She managed the negative press properly, but I think next time, she should really think before she talks.

People are always talking about the First Lady’s style and clothing. Not too long ago, Michelle Obama wore a simple and elegant dress on the popular talk show, The View. What really wowed the audience was that the dress came from a chic clothing store White House Black Market costing $148. Michelle showed that she is just like other American women: styling with a budget. After the whole Sarah Palin clothing out roar, this appearance on television made Michelle look good.

Michelle has big shoes to fill. As many view: Barbara Bush has been the typical and traditional First Lady living in the White House. Even though Michelle has been compared to Jacqueline Kennedy, she will bring “change” to the First Lady position by sticking to the traditional roles and become an active “do-it-all” First Lady all at the same time. “So yet another evolution awaits Michelle Obama: lawyer, wife, mother, politician -- and now, first decorator” (Merida). With her lawyer experiences, I wouldn’t want to argue with Michelle on what color goes and stays.

Does the internet effect voting?

2008-11-12T13:20:00.000-08:00

The Internet had a huge effect when voters went to cast their vote in this year’s election. Whether the voter used the internet a lot or not at all, it still in some way had an effect. I tend to forget that thousands and thousands of people still do not have internet access. Just because we are fortunate enough to have it and even get frustrated when it is moving “slow,” not everyone in our country is that privileged. As I begin to think about this technological phenomenon, I realize that just as we are influenced by the words someone says on the television or radio, I believe we are even more influenced by the internet. There are millions of pages of information available for us to surf, and we can read or watch something time and time again, thus noticing something that we might not have paid much attention to had we been flipping through channels or browsing the newspaper.

With the speed of the web, it is very easy for someone to post something the second they have an opinion about an issue or something new in the election process has happened. You missed one of the debates? Well, just find it on the internet and watch it on your own time. Don’t know that much about a particular issue? You can search the candidate’s website or simply type in the name of your topic to google news and thousands of news-related articles will pop up. Someone without internet access is unfortunately cut off from many of these opportunities. As the days moving towards the election got closer and closer, those without internet access might not have caught all of the small occurrences they might have wanted to know about before making their final decision.

On the other hand, sometimes I think it might be more beneficial without the internet. I feel that without the internet, voters would have more of an opportunity to formulate their own opinions and not reword one that they read or heard online. Even though this is still possible to do from watching TV, reading the newspaper, or listening to the radio, the internet is the master medium because it gives its audience the ability to do all of these in one form of media, and the information is available at all times for as long as you want it or need it. In addition, people who typically do not use the internet will most likely not have to worry about their facts being inaccurate. Things they read about in the newspaper or hear on the television or radio are going to be accurate because they are coming from credible sources. When something is posted on the internet, yes, there are many credible sources such as The Washington Post or MSNBC.com, but there are also many other sites written by any common individual who wants to share their opinion, just as I am doing now, so one might often wonder where these “facts” are coming from if they can even be considered facts.

To sum it up, the internet has both advantages and disadvantages, and it can affect a voter in one of two ways. 1) Those with access have tons of information available at the tips of their fingertips 24 hours a day. 2) Those without the internet might not get caught up in the scrutinized information the media is critical about, and they will be able to formulate their own opinions without constantly being influenced by every page they surf on the web.

Feminist Take on Clinton and Palin's Impact

2008-11-08T18:49:00.000-08:00

Here is an article assessing the impact of the 2008 candidacies of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. Gloria Steinem makes an interesting point about the reaction of young women to the media coverage of the two candidates. She argues that media sexism directed at Clinton and Palin may have opened the eyes of twenty- and thirty-something women around the country, injecting feminism with new momentum. Do you agree? Feel free to comment.

A Closing (Rogerian) Argument

2008-11-05T12:59:00.001-08:00

I'll be the first to admit throughout the campaign I did not turn to the internet to receive my political information. I find it difficult to deceifer truth from the fallacies, and know that it has become so easy for individuals to post untrue information about others onto the internet. Being a college student, I know others tend to look at college students as being easily impressionable individuals. I believe it takes true initiative to understand why we as college students choose to support our candidates and to actively campaign and continue to educate ourselves on the beliefs we feel will positively form the country. I commend and congratulate those of you who participated in your first (or second) election-- we made history either way you look at the outcome.

I first went to John McCain's website and was pleasantly surprised to see his thank you concession speech from Tuesday night's results because I felt it was so powerful. As an avid McCain supporter, his speech was bittersweet. After talking to both Obama and McCain supporters, many were touched by Senator McCain's concession speech. I felt McCain's speech can be looked as being a Rogerian Argument because of his strong empathy towards Barack Obama's historic victory. Senator McCain has a strong love for his country and the faith he has in our country gives me hope America is in a good place because we have people living here that appreciate what America is and the values it continues to stand for. He understands the many obstacles African Americans have had to overcome throughout the years. McCain knows Senator Barack Obama has inspired many individuals to become involved in American politics, especially younger voters.

McCain's empathy is shown through acknowledging his victories within the debates. The two have noticeable differences and McCain states Obama has won the victory of the presidency because he was able to prevail during the harder fights. Even though the two currently hold the same office in American government, they both have different political views for two different parties. He emphasizes common ground by stating the love of their country and they both ran for the office of presidency because of the love and respect they have for our nation. McCain states they both have come a long way in their candidacy and the country has changed by their improvements they have made and the time invested to the United States of America.

Rogerian Argument states the candidate discusses the mutual benefits of collaboration. For this particular speech, I feel McCain makes that statement to his supporters to acknowledge we all are Americans. Barack Obama is the President- Elect for not only the American citizens, but will act as the President for Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin. He states we need to offer "our next president our good will and earnest effort to find ways to come together, to find the necessary compromises, to bridge our differences, and help restore our prosperity, defend our security in a dangerous world, and leave our children and grandchildren a stronger, better country than we inherited". Our country should not become divided when this election prided itself on uniting the country and voting for our rights as citizens.

Although I wish the outcome had turned out differently, I do have a strong faith in my country. I trust their judgment and knowledge they made the right choice to lead our country as the 44th President of the United States. Please support our future President by educating yourself on him and VP-elect Joe Biden by reading up on his website.

Is the "Fairness Doctrine" Really Fair?

2008-11-05T12:23:00.000-08:00

As President elect, Barack Obama, prepares to take office in a few months he may find himself dealing with an issue he did not see coming. Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi are pushing for a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, a doctrine that, in my opinion, goes against the very foundations for which this country was formed. Representative Mike Pence of Indiana is leading the Republican charge against such reinstatement.

So, what exactly is the Fairness Doctrine and how does it apply to this class? Here is a little background on the Fairness Doctrine: it was a policy established by the FCC under President Roosevelt that required licensed broadcasters to present both sides of an issue if that issue was of public importance. The Supreme Court sided with the FCC and this policy was upheld until the FCC decided to have it withdrawn. In 1987 both houses of Congress passed a law that would have legally enforced the Fairness Doctrine but it was quickly vetoed by then President Ronald Reagan. Reagan responded to the bill in this way, “This type of content-based regulation by the federal government is, in my judgment, antagonistic to the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution.” Recently, some Democrats are seeking to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, not through the FCC, but through possible Congressional legislation, much like the bill vetoed by Reagan in ‘87. The Democrats catalyst for suggesting such action… talk radio.

As previously discussed in class, talk radio is a predominately conservative medium. In the document posted to the blog by Professor Kramer some reasons for this include: 1.) The American public is generally more Conservative, 2.) It developed as a result of the mainstream media which many Conservatives felt had a liberal bias, and 3.) The overwhelming segmentation of liberal audiences and relative homogeneousness of Conservative audiences. For these 3 reasons, liberal voices have been drowned out while Conservative voices like Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, and Sean Hannity have flourished on the airwaves.

A reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine would require FCC licensed broadcasters to provide programming that would balance out radio airwaves, making it mandatory for radio broadcasters to provide equal air time to every viewpoint. This means that Rush Limbaugh would have to be countered with a show expressing the liberal viewpoint.

I personally take issue with a possible reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. Liberal views are allowed to be heard on the radio just as much as Conservative views. Liberals have only themselves to blame for their lack of presence on the airwaves. Liberal talk radio shows have not experienced success because they can not generate a large enough audience. Rush Limbaugh himself would never promote stifling Liberal views on the radio. In fact, he would probably welcome the competition.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, a supporter of reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, said on Fox News that talk radio “tends to be dwelling in hyperbole, its explosive, it pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information.” Senator Feinstein is promoting the passage of a law that would severely restrict our First Amendment rights. Talk radio, specifically political talk radio, does not do damage or harm to anyone. What Feinstein is really saying, is that it does damage and harm to the Democratic political agenda. It is no coincidence that Democrats are trying to stifle talk radio. They see it as a powerful tool for advancing the Conservative agenda.

When considering the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine it is important to consider what the Founding Father’s intended when they formed our great nation. The First Amendment was established to allow for the free expression of views. The Fairness Doctrine would restrict this freedom of expression. Liberals are allowed to express their views on the radio as easily as Conservatives.

This debate will continue to rage and eventually our new President may be forced to make an important decision on the issue. This is another example of an important issue the American people should be more aware of, but are not.

I guess this answer to the title of this blog post is "NO!" The Fairness Doctrine is not fair, because it would put restrictions on free speech, something all Americans are guaranteed.

CNN's Election Night Holograms

2008-11-05T12:19:00.000-08:00

As we are moving into more unconventional areas of political communication, I thought I would add links to the CNN holograms that I mentioned in class today. The first holographic interview, in which reporter Jessica Yellin was "beamed" into the CNN Election Center, is here. In class, I failed to mention that Anderson Cooper later interviewed a hologram of singer will.i.am. That interview is linked here. So, is this a one-night wonder or is "holographic journalism" here to stay?

Dressed for Success

2008-10-31T19:01:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-31T10:45:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-29T10:04:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-10-28T21:20:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-16T13:17:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-10-15T15:29:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-10-15T05:49:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-10-08T13:39:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-08T09:50:00.001-07:00

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

2008-10-08T09:19:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-05T18:09:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-10-02T12:52:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-01T13:26:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-01T09:03:00.000-07:00

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?

Liars as Leaders

2008-09-28T19:54:00.001-07:00

The Brave New Foundation is an advocacy group dedicated to drawing attention to the social injustices plaguing America. http://www.bravenewfoundation.org/ As the presidential election draws near, the Brave New Foundation is focusing on supporting Barack Obama and the Democratic Party’s efforts. Earlier this month, they posted an assessment of a series of ads approved by John McCain which “distorted” many comments Obama has made in his campaigns. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH0xzsogzAk The constant scrutiny Obama has undergone is making this election one of the most negative campaigns to date. Instead of spending more money on informing Americans of why he is a qualified president, McCain is using his campaign dollars to take Obama’s words out of context and create messages that will cause America to view him in a negative light.
In one ad, McCain attacks Obama for wanting to have sex education classes for kindergarteners, when in fact Obama wanted to “protect young children from sexual predators.” In another ad, McCain says Obama deemed Iraq as a “tiny” country that did not pose a threat. Obama’s actual message was that Iraq (along with Cuba and Venezuela) is a tiny country compared to the Soviet Union, and would not pose a threat to America the way the Soviet Union would. A third ad criticized Obama for never supporting the troops, while McCain “always votes in favor of the troops,” yet the US Senate records prove, “John McCain has voted NO over 10 times on pro-veteran and active service member issues such as healthcare and body armor.” McCain also blames Obama for wanting to raise gas prices. McCain claims that he plans to drill more in America and “rescue family budgets.” The Department of Energy, however, says “the effects of drilling in America wouldn’t even be felt until 2030,” meaning McCain could not possibly take credit for lowering gas prices in the next four years. Several magazines such as Time and newspapers such as the New York Times were then quoted in the assessment by the Brave New Foundation. These magazines criticized McCain for upping the anti for “sleazy” political ads and constant deceit. These negative advertisements seem to show how far McCain is willing to go in order to bring down Obama. He has taken Obama’s messages completely out of context and misused the media to share false ads with America.
This assessment by the Brave New Foundation is an example of both negative ads and how the media utilizes the watchdog function to keep candidates honest. Typically, negative ads are used when candidates see that their competitor is favored by voters. If this theory is true, McCain must believe that Obama is favored by the public and his continual negative advertising methods may be an effort to bring down Obama’s appeal since McCain has already done everything in his power to raise his own approval rating. Though both candidates are guilty of releasing negative ads about their opponent, McCain seems to be guilty of releasing carelessly researched and therefore less credible ads about Obama. The watchdog function of the media allows a balance for the deceit in political advertising. Since it is against the law to not show an ad even if it is untrue, negative commercials have to be aired. The Brave New Foundation’s retaliation assessment of many of John McCain’s false ads can be shown to the public via the Internet on such websites as youtube.com in order to hold candidates accountable for their messages.
Since viewing many of the negative ads McCain has released, my respect for him has continued to diminish. It is my opinion that a man who will use such unfair techniques in order to skew what another candidate stands for is not worthy of trust. This assessment by Brave New Foundation has been effective in making me question whether or not McCain will be trustworthy as a president if he is not credible in his advertising. Character is not determined by whether or not someone wins, but how they win.

Country first... and second... and third...

2008-09-24T13:42:00.001-07:00

As recently as a few hours ago, McCain put his campaign on hold to convene with government officials to propose a plan helping the economic situation facing the country. I know many people believe this move to be a poor one for McCain's campaign. I was unsure of how I felt when I immediately heard McCain's announcement. The more I think about McCain's actions, the more I feel it was a smart move on his part. He is not doing this to gain the approval of the American people within the polls. The economic situation can not be fixed in a matter of days, but what McCain states to be "leadership meetings", is a start. I think it is the perfect opportunity to see our presidential candidates step up to the plate and see how they react in an American crisis. For McCain, he was the first of the two candidates to address the situation. The action of putting his presidential campaign aside in order to focus on the interest of the American people is Senator John McCain's most noted quality- you know, putting "Country First".

His message to the American people can be found here: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/24/campaign.wrap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview#cnnSTCVideo

Throughout this campaign, I have gained more and more respect for Republican nominee John McCain. I admire his "Country First" approach within his campaign, especially when he detailed his Prisoner of War experience in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. I respect the numerous times he has addressed the negativity within presidential campaigning: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZf05ijVFtc&feature=related
He has faith in the American people, and by heading to Washington in the middle of his campaigning to formulate economic strategies in order to better the American people, it is evident he truly does put country first.
After reading other political blogs on this topic, many have Barack Obama quoted:

"It's my belief that this is exactly the time when the American people need to
hear from the person who in approximately 40 days will be responsible for
dealing with this mess," said Obama. "Part of the president's job is to deal
with more than one thing at once."

(http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/09/mccain_suspends_campaign.html?hpid=topnews)

I agree with Obama's statement, and because I agree with his statement, I find it odd that he is not stopping his campaign in order to help a crisis that he quite possibly might be in charge of handling come January. Both candidates should want to formulate a plan in order to change the current situation because they are Americans too. The president has the ability to change American policies to better not only the country but themselves as American citizens.

John McCain has not forgotten about his campaign, he merely is putting it second and dealing with the economic crisis currently facing the country. He did ask Obama to join him in his act of putting the economic situation ahead of the presidential debate and campaigning. The negative campaigning needs to take a back seat for the next few days so these presidential candidates, current president and government officials to economically secure the future of all Americans.

Senator Biden for Vice President?

2008-09-24T03:31:00.000-07:00

Conflict arose yesterday when Senator Barrack Obama criticized his running mate, Senator Joe Biden for having an opposing view on “massive financial bailouts.” Biden agreed with Senator John McCain in stating that the federal government should not have given the American International Group $85 billion in aid, then later decide to change his view and back it. Senator Obama later tried to settle the issue, by simply stating that he should have waited to respond to the comment, but why did he choose to agree with Senator McCain in the first place?

In an interview Monday, Senator Biden called one of his campaign advertisements that mocked John McCain horrible, as it apparently knocked his lack of e-mailing skills. This is truly ridiculous considering that voters are looking to these advertisements for the presidential nominees to address issues, but instead they are addressing who is better at e-mailing? In this instance, he is again siding with Senator McCain.

Senator Biden said "When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed," which contains some wrong information as FDR came into office three years after the stock market crash and at a time when television had yet to take off. Does Senator Biden, a vice-presidential nominee, really know that little about the history of his own country and the former presidents of the United States? Regardless, Senator Obama continues to believe that he is a better choice then Senator Clinton as he is an “Outstanding public servant,” which has the same effect on me as Senator Obama being a “community organizer,” nothing. How do those positions explain why Senator Obama or Senator Biden are qualified to be president and vice president? In asking a vice presidential nominee about his running mates questionable statements, I expect a response more solid than this, especially when there are only about two months left until the election.

The Republican National Committee believes that Senator Obama is being reflected through his running mate’s comments and points out his inexperience. I could not agree more. I can’t understand how Senator Obama and Senator Biden are experiencing contradictions on current political issues. Do they not discuss them? Furthermore, it seems Senator Biden has been siding with Senator McCain recently and Senator Obama continues to condemn then defend his choice for vice-presidential nominee. Though a spokesperson for Biden, tried to change the subject by talking about Senator McCain’s plan for tougher rules on Wall Street, when he had previously supported deregulation. However, while he might change his stance on an issue, Senator Biden has stated, “Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Let’s get that straight. She’s a truly close personal friend, she is qualified to be president of the United States of America, she’s easily qualified to be vice president of the United States of America, and quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me,” which really this lack of enthusiasm as vice-presidential nominee as well as his lack of enthusiasm for America. If Senator Biden truly believes that Senator Clinton was a better pick, then why even bother accepting the nomination? The occurrences of these past couple of weeks have really left me wondering what Senator Obama was thinking when he picked Senator Biden as his running mate.

Political Cartoonists' Take on the Nominees

2008-09-17T19:55:00.000-07:00

As a follow-up to our unit on political cartoons, I thought some of you might be interested in these two New York Times columns about political cartoonists discussing their efforts in depicting the presidential and vice presidential nominees.

Obamanomics

2008-09-17T19:53:00.000-07:00

Anyone notice the recent slump in Senator Obama’s Gallup poll rating? I didn’t. But after reading Jeff Jacoby’s article in the Boson Globe, titled “Seeing through Obamanomics”, I learned that Obama’s ranking fell from 54 percent in August to 48 percent in a month’s time, just barley giving him the lead over John McCain. Jacoby attributes the fall to the public’s reaction to Obamanomics; Senator Obama’s plan for addressing economic issues.

Obama describes his plan as “neighborliness” saying that those who can afford it should by willing to pay more taxes to support those who are not earning enough money. Jacoby says, “Taxation is not generosity, it is confiscation at gunpoint” and I agree.

Who is Senator Obama to force wealthy American’s; people who have worked hard to earn money and maintain a high standard of living, to support those who are making minimum wage? Let me just say that I do agree that well off American’s should do their part by giving back to society and donate money to charitable causes and others in need of financial support. But to force them? Let’s get real.

Perhaps I would be more inclined to go along with Obama’s economic plan if he played more of an active roll in contributing to charities. According to Jacoby, Obama himself, a man pulling in an average of almost $250,000, only managed to donate $2,154 from 2000 to 2004. Naturally he bumped up this percentage to 5.5 percent when he entered the US Senate and started talking about running for president. What gives Obama the right to ask wealthy American’s to be more neighborly if he was not willing to actively help out the little guy until he was under public scrutiny? Something is not making sense to me.

Taking money from upper class American’s and handing it to the lower class is not, in my opinion, the correct way to address our countries economic problems, of course there are other ways to look at this issue. However, I believe Jacoby is right when he says, “you [don’t] have to be an economist to wonder about the grasp of a nominee who tells 95 percent of the public that they can have something for nothing.”

This legitimate form of political communication presents ways for readers to grasp meaning with the presentation of statistics. While all readers of Jacoby’s article may not agree with what he has to say or his interpretation of Obama’s taxation policy, the piece does prompt readers of all political parties to investigate the issue discussed.

Jacoby’s critique of Obama’s economic plan presents overlap of three different forms of political communication. He wrote an article for the Boston Globe which appeared in print and on the internet and the article also made reference to a Fox News interview Senator Obama had with Bill O’Reilly, allowing the topic to reach a broad group of individuals.

This article also demonstrates some of the new incivility found in politics today. The attention that Jacoby draws to “Obamanomics” enhances an already mean spirited discourse between politicians who thrive on ego driven politics, media figures, and the public. The fact that news is now used as entertainment adds more to the new incivility. News now goes in a twenty four hour cycle which means stories constantly have to be addressed with a new spin in order to get the public interested and talking about the issues. “Obamanomics” was first talked about when Obama was interviewed by O’Reilly and then Jacoby steps in and discusses it in his article, causing more of an uproar about the topic.

The fact that this article is on the internet also adds to the new incivility in politics. Internet technology allows people to react quickly. Readers are able to pass the piece around quickly by emailing it to friends, creating a blog about it, and giving feedback to the columnist. The more technology progresses, the less accurate the information can be because people can react quickly without checking their sources… or even having sources for that matter.

Jacoby’s opinion editorial just goes to show that every single thing a politician says is under scrutiny. Whenever a political figure comments on an issue or answers a question, someone is listening and ready to argue. While the argumentative nature of Jacoby’s piece does offer up forms of incivility he has a right to express his opinions and allow the public to see an issue from a different viewpoint.

Comedy Blogs: Entertainment or Political Communication?

2008-04-30T14:08:00.000-07:00

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

2008-04-30T13:30:00.001-07:00

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

2008-04-29T12:00:00.000-07:00

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

2008-04-24T22:49:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-04-23T19:02:00.000-07:00

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...

2008-04-23T12:41:00.000-07:00

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

2008-04-22T17:15:00.000-07:00

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.

2008-04-16T15:52:00.000-07:00

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

2008-04-16T10:31:00.000-07:00

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"

2008-04-09T11:44:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-04-07T13:56:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-04-06T17:37:00.000-07:00

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...

2008-04-02T15:54:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-04-02T08:08:00.000-07:00

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

2008-04-01T08:36:00.000-07:00

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.

Reading for Monday, 3/31

2008-03-30T16:15:00.001-07:00

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

Tough Times for Obama and Clinton

2008-03-27T14:20:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

Pseudo Monarchs and Hillary’s Announcement

2008-03-26T12:36:00.001-07:00

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

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

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

Not-So-Happy Anniversary

2008-03-26T09:48:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

Feminism and Hillary: Dead Or Wading?

2008-03-19T16:37:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

Spitzer's Scandal and Resignaton

2008-03-19T12:52:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

2008-03-19T09:14:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama Article by Kristol

2008-03-17T10:45:00.000-07:00

Check out this article.

Another Shot in the Foot for Hillary

2008-03-12T20:56:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

Obama's Game Plan

2008-03-11T20:08:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clinton and Obama: Can we have both?

2008-03-04T20:29:00.000-08:00

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

Disclaimer: Prepare to be angered by my political views

2008-02-27T14:43:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Presidential Candidacy Announcements: Barack vs. Hillary

2008-02-27T13:38:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Make sure that surrogate speakers agree with your "mission"

2008-02-27T10:20:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

Surrogate Speakers Can Help And Hurt A Campaign

2008-02-20T15:42:00.000-08:00

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

Pointless Communication?

2008-02-20T13:45:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

Don't Count Hillary Out Just Yet

2008-02-20T11:30:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

Democratic Takeover--Civility and Blogs

2006-12-06T11:18:00.000-08:00

With the 2006 midterm elections over and the results in, we are looking at a Democratic takeover of Congress next month. Back in late October, USA Today printed an article detailing what might happen if such an outcome occurred. The article cites that a “Democratic House would radically alter the balance of power in Washington…because House rules—unlike those in the Senate—give the majority sweeping authority to set the legislative agenda.”

In an interesting turn of events, the Democratic takeover has not yet occurred but is already rocking Congress. An article from The Wall Street Journal reports how Republicans in the House are taking matters into their own hands and creating a giant mess for the Democrats to clean up after they are gone. These sore losers are doing their best to generate as much chaos and disaster as possible in order to prevent the Democrats from carrying out their agenda.

Quite frankly, I was shocked to hear this news. Civility was one thing that we discussed at length in class and this event is a slap in its face. Putting a false advertisement on television is one thing. Pushing legislation that negatively affects the American people in areas including food safety and veteran’s health care is another. What kind of message is this sending to the public? As elected representatives and public figures, these men and women have a responsibility to the American people that ends when they leave office—not when the election results roll in. As the saying goes, actions speak louder than words.

The article from The Wall Street Journal is very recent and I had a difficult time finding other news stories on the same issue. I have to wonder, though, whether or not this story will be picked up. Or will it be dismissed by the media as unimportant and not really a big deal. As a “common person” I think it is a big deal. I think it touches on a very important issue that has come to a head during the Bush administration: government accountability.

In matters of government, I tend to focus on things when it is time to elect someone or when the media makes a big fuss over something. I don’t spend a lot of time reading blogs, following news stories, and wondering if the politicians are behaving. I place my trust in the elected officials to behave correctly and in the journalists to report accurately. I would never have found this story if I hadn’t stumbled across this New York Times blog. Already, numerous bloggers have picked up the story and are using it in their posts.

This brings me to my next point: how important are blogs? And, should they be important? Like any other form of communication, they have positives and negatives. I like the idea of regular people performing the “watchdog” duties that have traditionally been given to journalists. It seems like the ultimate form of democracy. However, I just can’t get over how impractical they are. Without blogs, I never would have known what was happening in Congress. However, obtaining news from blogs seems to be ultimately unrealistic. This could just be me, but I had enough trouble keeping up with our own little class blog, much less seriously surfing around daily to other political blogs.

A Look to the Future: Predictions for the 2008 Election.

2006-12-05T15:06:00.000-08:00

While we still recover from 2006 midterm election, many politicians have already set their sights on something much larger: the presidential election of 2008. The last few weeks have brought out a number of potential candidates and even one official declaration of candidacy by Iowa Democratic Gov. Tom Vilsack. The reason this issue grabbed my attention was because of what the other four candidates have done, which is forming exploratory committees. This interested me first because I had no idea what they were. I found that that, “ an exploratory committee, under federal election law, allows an individual to travel and gauge the level of support for a candidacy without formally declaring themselves a candidate and adhering to all the federal rules of fundraising.” Basically, the idea behind exploratory committees is for candidates to put their names out there and have a committee research whether or not they have a chance. The four other candidates who have done this are Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kansas, and former New York GOP Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and Senator Bayh from Indiana.

Conspicuously absent from the list are two people who have been given the most presidential buzz, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. While not on the list there has been internet buzz on blogs on Obama and Clinton.

I don’t believe it is an accident that both of these high profile politicians have yet to make public their presidential intentions if there are any. Both are obviously considered “underdogs” for the top political position in the world, because they are minorities: one being black and the other a woman. I think their waiting is actually a very calculated move. While both are criticized in blogs and on the internet, much more than any mainstream criticisms, that will change once they declare their candidacy. Hillary is not stranger to being torn apart in the media (Our own class even read an article how Hillary’s lack of humor made her “un human”) and I think that will escalate once she makes a clear declaration. Obama has had relatively less criticism in the media and some have even claimed he has “rock star status” while on the campaign trail and promoting his new book.

Both are democrats, share similar views, and are minorities in a white male dominated culture. As a woman, the first question I have to ask is why Hillary? Why is she constantly scrutinized and possibly waiting to announce in order to avoid media backlash? While I don’t wish that on Barack Obama, I feel slightly cynical that the American public will never be able to accept a woman in the highest power position in the country. I also think that Hillary is already at a disadvantage if she does decide to run, because it has been so commonplace, even in popular culture, to ridicule everything from her “funny bone” to her hairstyle. Criticizing her policies if she runs for president will be an easy transition for those who already critique her. For those of you who are fans of both Obama and Clinton, the blogosphere has been calling for them to be running mates. While I don’t know if this would ever happen it would be very interesting how that team would work out.

No matter who decides to run and for what, I hope that the election of 2008 brings many changes to campaign communication. It would be a nice surprise and relief to see negative advertising be cut down as well as inaccurate ads pulled from airing. I hope we elect a great leader, and not just a person who isn’t a woman.

Media: Republican or Democratic?

2006-11-29T18:54:00.000-08:00

Over the course of the class we have discussed various forms of political communication. We have spent a lot of time focusing on the media, and their involvement with politics. As a class, we have looked at the way that the media presents their material and if it is accurate or not. We have also discussed if the media leans towards one political party or the other party. Many Democrats say the media is more conservative while the Republicans argue the opposite. Will we ever come to the conclusion to answer the burning question: Is the media Republican or Democratic?

Nancy Pelosi is the Democratic House leader. She has made the accomplishment of being the first woman in to lead a major party in the United States. In a time of division within political parties, Pelosi has managed to keep the Democrats united. She has been able to keep their support with the various goals that lead to her success. Although a political powerhouse like Pelosi can make mistakes. The question is, how fast do we forgive her?

As many of us are aware, there is a debate about Iraq. President Bush stated that he "blamed the surge of violence in Iraq on al Qaeda" when asked a question by a reporter. This statement created a reaction in Pelosi, so she had to make a counterstatement. She was short and to the point: "the 9/11 Commission dismissed that notion a long time ago and I feel sad that the President is resorting to it again." She also mentioned how this will make it difficult for the Democrats to unite with the Republicans to work with the White House. NBC ignored Pelosi’s mistake, and used it as a plausible source for their news. David Gregory, NBC’s nightly news reporter, gave an opinion based off of what Pelosi said. Not realizing that it was incorrect.

Pelosi made a mistake, it happens to all of us. When you are in the political world it is not allowed, or is it? According to some people it is depending on your political party. Some networks simply said that she misunderstood the question. Fred Barnes believed otherwise. Barnes stated that the question was perfectly clear and that Pelosi simply gave an answer that was inaccurate. Barnes mentioned that “Pelosi doesn't seem to think that al Qaeda is active there in Iraq, which it is.” He mentioned many Republican leaders that would be criticized and critiqued for making a mistake like Pelosi’s.

What would have happened if the roles were switched and a republican did make this mistake? Would the reputation be tainted, or simply brushed aside like Pelosi’s mistake? We all know that there are republican and democratic news stations. It is necessary so the American people can get an unbiased view. If the media is going to attack the way that Bush pronounces the word “nuclear”, they should be ready to attack Pelosi’s inaccurate information that was supplied to NBC. There cannot be one reaction to one party and not the other. Pelosi was innacurate with her information. We must accept that she made a mistake and not attack her. This reaction must be the same for the republicans also. To answer the question: Is the media republican or democrat? It seems that the democrats have a small advantage.
work cited

Millions and millions and millions and millions…..

2006-11-27T18:52:00.000-08:00

We talked the entire semester about advertisements. Some were biographical, some were ridicule and others were just plain negative. But I don’t think we spent enough time going over how much money is actually spent on these advertisements. After looking around the internet about facts and figures from the latest campaign I was disgusted at how much money was spent for advertisements. The numbers amazed me, that we can’t do anything better with our money then to expose our competitors? I think these numbers alone take away respect that I had for our political system.
In class, we talked a lot about the advertisements that were everywhere for the Senate and the House races, but we seem to neglected the ads for the States’ Supreme Courts. Not only were a lot of these ads negative and as I found out through some of my research, many were falsely negative, but also these advertisements cost over $16 million dollars in only ten states. Apparently the judicial courts people did not usually advertise like other congress candidates. This is a growing trend, but by the way that money is being tossed around, I think that is not a trend that should be continuing. There is just way too much money spent on advertising. Advertising is not DOING anything for the public but informing them on candidates, therefore it is really not helping anyone. It specifically points out three states and the negative FALSE advertising that state supreme court hopefuls used against their opponents. In Alabama, Cobb tried to present her opponent, Nabers as using $990,000 from the oil industry for his advertisements. As the story truthfully came out, the money was from the American Taxpayer Alliance. So Cobb was frowned upon, Yet no one notices that there $990,000 spent on advertisements? Hello! I think that is the real problem.
As we all noticed, negative ads were on every television in every state at least a few times during this most recent election. And the numbers added up to $160 million dollars in negative advertisements. Wow. After all that we have talked about how people may have been getting fed up with negativity on the political advertisements and how it may or may not be affecting people and their respect for politics in general. $160 million dollars in negativity, falsity, slander, and just plain crudeness. I know that is what I want to see on televsion... I think that that is disheartening to hear that poeple are spending all that money just to gossip about one another. It still seems to say that the money goes where the entertainment is, and unfortunately that is in negative advertisements.
Even back in 2002, millions were spent directed at the Spanish-speaking audience. These people were running in an AMERICAN election and spent over 9 million dollars in a different country’s native language to reach potential voters. Yes, I do understand that Spanish-speaking Americans are all over the country and deserve attention as well. I am not neglecting the thought that they need ads directed towards them, but I just think that $9 million dollars is a lot of money just for campaign advertisements. I am sure that there could have been some other way to spend those millions of dollars directed at Spanish-speaking Americans, like maybe a language course that a candidate could have sponsored.
I guess it is sad to say, but whoever spends the most…wins. “In 93 percent of House of Representatives races and 67 percent of Senate races that had been decided by mid-day Nov. 9, the candidate who spent the most money won, according to a post-election analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. The findings are based on candidates' spending through Oct. 18, as reported to the Federal Election Commission.”
The average cost for a House member to win was, $966,000 while the Senators spent on average $7.8 million dollars. The candidate to spend the least amount of money and win, Carol Shea-Porter from New Hampshire. She only spent $123,257 to win her House seat and in the senate, Jon Tester from Montana only spent $3.8 million. Only? I just can’t use that word to describe the amount of money that has been spent here. Only $3.8 million dollars? I think that is quite a bit.
So as researchers have found, 2006 was the most expensive mid-term election. I understand that candidates have to get there name out there and advertisements are how you win. But I just cannot agree with spending millions and millions and millions of dollars. If candidates are complaining about issues with our school system and Medicare, look in the mirror. If they have millions of dollars in sponsorships to talk about these issues, then why don’t they do something and donate the money to help those issues because actions always speak louder than words.

Pelosi: Cleaning House and Hanging Up New Curtains

2006-11-16T22:13:00.000-08:00

While looking up information about first woman Speaker of the House, Democrat Nancy Pelosi, I came across many blogs that discussed her fashion sense, standpoints on issues, and her seemingly hard demeanor and her attempts to use humor. I was curious if her treatment in the media was similar to that of Hillary Clinton, seeing as she is a powerful government official.
While researching what other House members and what the general public thinks of Pelosi it was interesting, but not surprising to read some of the comments that others had said of her. The most memorable and most audacious came from our President George W. Bush, whom on learning of her appointment said “"in my first act of bipartisan outreach since the election, I shared with her the names of some Republican interior decorators who can help her pick out the new drapes in her new offices”. What?? The first woman ever elected to be the Speaker of the House, and the President is referring her to an interior decorator? Joke or not, I found this to be incredibly demeaning to women as well as a representation that our government is still a “good old boys” club, no matter how many women are making history. While researching the comment further, I was reminded of some of our topics we have discussed earlier. One was the unmediated blogs’ reporting of news that the mainstream media didn’t, the press’s portrayal and analysis of female politicians in relation to men and Pelosi’s attempts at humor in her communication.
The blogosphere definitely had much more focus on the comment made than anything in the mainstream media. I didn’t even know it had been said until I actively sought out information on Nancy Pelosi. Offended bloggers for the most part were Democratic or Liberal leaning, but even some Republicans touted this as one of George W’s biggest gaffes. Not only was it mentioned in blogs, but some newspapers also offered critcism in opinion editorials, to read one of these click here, which is very similar to the blog reactions, here. It is hard to try and guess what reason that the mainstream media, for the most part ignored this statement. Was it because people took the statement as an attempt at humor, or in a male dominated press industry was it just not seen as that big of a deal?
Pelosi’s portrayal in the media is also extremely different than that of men, which might also be attributed to the male dominated press. Even the Associated Press has stooped as low as saying, “House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., arrives on Capitol Hill Nov. 8, 2006, in Washington dressed in an Armani aqua blue-grey pantsuit [.]” I honestly do not see any relevance whatsoever to what she is wearing and her new job. There would be a lot more head scratching and puzzlement if the AP had reported that Bush looked dashing in his new Kenneth Cole suit. A male politician would never have to worry that his fashion choices were going to be the subject of intense media scrutiny. A feminist blog also criticizes the AP’s reporting here and a picture of the talked about pantsuit. But, unfortunately the more I researched her troubles, I found that Pelosi is definitely not the only woman who has had to face this issue. Both Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice have recently been under pressure for their appearance choices, with the former being reported as having millions of surgery done to be less “hideous”, and the latter being called a “dominatrix” because of her shoes. On the day Rice was sworn in as National Security Advisor, The New York Times, reported that “her dress size is between a 6 and an 8”. It’s an entirely different media relationship when you are a woman in power. I found these examples to be interesting because it is a lot different to know a theory of women are treated, but to actually see how it occurs, made me realize how ridiculous it is.
Although usually described as “tough” and a “hard liner”, Pelosi has also made attempts at the use of humor in her speeches and actively tries to destroy the old myth that women aren’t funny. References to her humor are very reminiscent of Ann Richards. There is a hint of self deprecating, feminist, and superiority humor in her communications. While giving a speech and the crowd grew too loud, she quipped, “'Am I going to have to use my Mother of Five Voice to be heard?'". She has even admitted to using sexist humor in a deliberate attempt to make a point. This was evident in her pun to CNN, saying "Maybe it takes a woman to clean House." Interestingly enough, the excerpts that I just inserted were from a generally feminist leading website and they are VERY critical of Pelosi’s use of humor. Which I didn't really understand as I found it to be particularly effective.
In general I found Pelosi to be a very compelling public figure and I hope, though doubt it will happen any time soon, that she is given more respect in the mainstream media, that the press in general treats women and men politicians the same, and a greater acceptance of her usage of humor. After all, while the humor may not have even been the greatest joke, she could’ve just been trying to avoid being called “un human” like Hillary.

Entertainment and Politics

2006-11-16T18:06:00.000-08:00

While we were talking about humor in politics I couldn’t help but think of Saturday Night Live. A few months back, I saw a SNL which a was being hosted by Al Gore, and I found it really odd that someone like Gore would want to host the show. As you probably remember Gore has always been seen at stiff, unfriendly, and emotionless especially compared to the charismatic Bush in the 2000 election. During that election Gore hosted SNL and saw a boast after the show aired. Apparently, Gore had managed to convince the public he was funny.
SNL, Mad TV, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and late night talk shows have all had a good deal of success mocking politicians and the political system. In fact several politicians have gone on these shows to mock each other. For example, Al Gore’s recent appearance on SNL is a direct insult to George Bush (To watch the video clip click here) After watching this clip I felt like Al Gore had was trying to be something he wasn’t and this was a prime example of the incivility of today’s politics. Mocking a political figure does not bothering me, and I understand the importance of humor in politics. However, I don’t think it is appropriate for a politician to mock another politician to this degree. A comedian mocking a politician is not offensive however I think a politician mocking another politician just creates more incivility. Allowing a fellow politician to be the butt of your joke during a speech in one thing, but acting out skits on SNL is another.
However, I can’t blame Al Gore for hosting SNL considering that 21% of Americans 18 to 29 get election news from shows such as SNL and The Daily Show. (According to MSN, click here for more information) Therefore, it is understandable that Gore went on SNL considering he could soften his image and reach younger votes all in one punch. But for the political system the amount of information young audience are gathering from these shows is a problem. Considering that most of the information is false or fabricated, after all these are comedies not news shows. Late night TV has a growing influence on the way election are run, for example Arnold Schwarzenegger announcing his candidacy on the Jay Leno show. The amount of attention these shows have received recently is one of the reasons politics today has become more about entertainment and less about policy, compared to former years. Political movies such as Fahrenheit 9/11, The Inconvenient Truth and many others have also contributed growth of entertainment in politics. Again, while these movies reach a broad audience they are not factual. They may have a political focus but there main point is still to entertain. Often that means lying or fudging the true to make something more entertaining. It is impossible to know the impact of these films on the public opinion, but at the very least they perform an agenda setting function. ( Information about how movies affected the elections click here)
The influence of shows and movies in politics is certainly not going to stop anytime soon, in fact I’m sure it will only increase in the next election. With all of these competing shows and movies they are likely to get further away from the truth and continue to cheapen politics. While humor may be needed in politics, I don’t want our politicians becoming actors.

News From the Polls

2006-11-13T16:37:00.000-08:00

Recent data from the '06 midterm elections last week reveals that turnout among 18-29 year olds increased by more than 2 million voters compared to 2002. At least 10 million votes were cast by this age group and the numbers are still coming in. The youth share of the electorate grew from 11% in 2002 to 13% in 2006 and the youth voter turnout rate grew from 20% in 2002 to 24% in 2006. Young Americans voted overwhelmingly in favor of the Democratic party (60% versus 38%). These statistics are made even more significant when considering that young people are actually a smaller share of the electorate in 2006 than in 2002 and also that turnout overall in 2006 increased from 2002. In other words, the increase in voter turnout by 18-29 year olds this election significantly outpaced the overall population turnout increase.

The increase in voter turnout for this age group is attributed to 2 factors: strong desire for change and high levels of contact from campaign and nonpartisan organizations. With the Democratic party taking over the Senate and the House after this election, young people have proven their political power and at 42 million strong, this generation will only grow in importance as voter turnout increases. Something to ponder for the future: data shows that after a person votes with one party for 3 consecutive elections, he/she stays with the party for life. If the Democrats win the youth vote in 2008, there could be serious long-term political consequences. All data was taken from blog.rockthevote.com and youngvoterstrategies.org.

Spotlight on Youth Vote

2006-11-09T13:55:00.000-08:00

Although it is too early to tell how much effect youth voters had on the midterm elections, the months leading up to this week revealed a nation focused on its youngest voting population. This is a trend carried over from two years earlier in the 2004 national election when massive media campaigns were trained at the 18-32 year-old demographic in an attempt to wake up this politically apathetic age group. Young voters were targeted by organizations such as Rock the Vote, which united MTV with musicians, singers, and actors, in order to convince young people to register and vote.

Two years later, it is apparent that the effort has not died out. Rather, many of these same groups are back, more determined and more organized than before. Harvard University’s Institute of Politics just released a press release this week with details from a new poll. The poll specifically targets young voters and anticipates that they will have a major effect on the midterm elections. This issue first came to my attention when I came across a political ad on evening television a few months ago. Usually, I switch the channel or turn the sound down, but I decided to watch it in case it came up in class later. The more I watched of this ad, the more confused I got. It seemed like the typical, cheesy ad with “real” people giving glowing testimonials but something was not quite right and I couldn’t put my finger on it. I waited for the “I approve this message” end credit…and there was a packet of relish. Yep, a packet of relish and a woman’s voice saying, “If you’re not voting, then who are you electing?”.

Turns out Old Relish Packet is just one in the “Pay Attention & Vote” series launched by the Advertising Council and Federal Voting Assistance Program. These public service advertisements were first aired in August and use humor to catch the attention of young voters. The link I posted takes you to YouTube’s 30 second spot for Old Relish Packet because it’s my personal favorite, but feel free to watch the others that include Side of Hashbrowns, Bag of Leaves, Tacky Ceramic Rooster, and more. This article from The Detroit News Online briefly reiterates two important points about the Old Relish Packet ad. First is the use of humor and second is the desire to target young voters. The article quotes Brown University professor Darrell West saying “There has been so much fear-mongering in recent years…and people are sick of that.” The article then goes on to explain what an effective tool humor is for political communication and how more politicians are using it.

From class we know that humor in advertisements has effective advantages. However, we also know that humor in advertisements has its limits and disadvantages as well. I question how effective the Old Relish Packet ad really is. In an attempt to capture the attention of youth voters, it seems people have resorted to entertainment. Does that cheapen politics and turn it into just as much of a publicity stunt as attack ads do? In the end, does it really compel young people to vote? Go to Google and type the words “old relish packet” and the first hit will be an entire website by PayAttention.org that details breaking news on Old Relish Packet’s “campaign” and even offers a downloadable bumper sticker. In theory, the ad supports “all” candidates, but in actuality, the ad supports none of them. There is still a significant gap between the entertainment of the ad and its accompanying website and the significance and responsibility of the campaign and candidates.

I genuinely enjoyed the Old Relish Packet ad; I liked it enough to research it and turn it into a post. It was funny and different and I thought it provided a perfect satire for the political advertisements we had been studying in class. But I remain skeptical about its effectiveness. It is entertaining but I do not think it is enough to merit serious consideration of active political involvement. We seem to respond strongly to negative reports, fear appeals, and attack ads; these methods highlight a serious problem. An ad with humor may highlight a serious problem as well, but it also releases the tension with laughter, thus undercutting the necessity for change.

The Blame Game: Political Attacks on Proxies

2006-11-09T10:46:00.000-08:00

Last Friday I was reading the newspaper when a political cartoon caught my eye. It depicted a donkey holding a picture of Senator John Kerry and an elephant holding a picture of Rush Limbaugh; both political figures have a foot in their mouth. A conversation bubble is shared between the animal figures stating, “My guy is more sorry than your guy!” The image of the ad can be found here.

I really don’t want to talk about the ad itself, but rather I would like to address what the ad is poking fun at; the insensitive and completely inappropriate comments made by both Kerry and Limbaugh about US troops in Iraq and Michael J. Fox respectively. A small video clip of Kerry’s comment can be found here, and an article about Limbaugh’s comments can be found here.

First off, let us discuss John Kerry’s remark about the US Troops in Iraq. He had originally meant for it to be a joke and a jab at the current policies of President Bush, but failed miserably. Although I do agree that humor is a great way for politicians to appeal to voters and citizens, I do believe that it has to be done correctly for it to work. When John Kerry suggested that the men and women that are fighting for our country are uneducated and “stuck in Iraq” because of it, he belittled their efforts and pains that they endure for us, and him! If he wanted to criticize the current legislation and policies concerning Iraq, he should have done so. Kerry should not have degraded our active military as a proxy. The fact that he refused to apologize at first was also a terrible show of character.

Secondly, there was Rush Limbaugh’s claim that Michael J. Fox, in an ad he filmed supporting Maryland Democrat Ben Cardin, either did not take his medication to control his Parkinson’s or was faking the severity of it. He later critiqued that “Michael J. Fox is allowing his illness to be exploited and in the process is shilling for a Democratic politician.” Again, a political figure is condemning someone else besides their intended target for views they do not believe in. If Rush wanted to criticize Democratic candidates for supposedly exploiting Fox’s disease to support their stance on stem cell research, he should have just done so.

I guess what I am trying to say is that if political figures want to say something, they should just come out and say it. Using proxy targets to tip-toe around their own opinions and positions just causes more controversy and incivility. Michael J. Fox did not choose to have Parkinson’s; he simply decided to advocate for stem-cell research so other people may not have to suffer as he does. Can you blame him? The troops in Iraq did not decide on the policies for the war; they simply chose to uphold their duties and defend their families, fellow citizens, and country. Can you blame them either? So a word of advice to pundits and politicians: Chose your targets wisely, and keep your extremities out of your mouths.

Do Weblogs = Communication?

2006-11-02T19:28:00.000-08:00

Bulletin boards, a good way to communicate or not? With the growing popularity of the Internet, its only a matter of time before things such as weblogs take off. It becomes another channel for the people to state their opinions. It becomes a way for people to learn more about the issues and to discuss them.
However, the concern I have is the fact that these people are now just screen names and alias’ rather than actually people who can communicate face- to- face. All sorts of people can and do post on political blogs. People are not as afraid of being confrontational when no one has to see their face or know their identity. You are just another anonymous source on the internet. No one can find you unless you want to be found. No one can challenge you unless you want to be challenged. I am hard press to call this communication. Communication involves sending and receiving messages. There is nothing to say this is happening here. Granted, there are responses to what is posted and there might be some elements of interaction, but there is no listening, there is little agreement, and there is little convincing of an opposing side. I think back to the Rogerian Arguments and I see the problems that were being addressed there coming out all too clearly in the Political Bulletin Board. There is judgment and defensiveness instead of listening. Instead of addressing important issues and thinking of ways to improve them together, there is complaining and ridicule and gossip. I don’t think the appeal of discussion board has as much to do with the sense of community as it does an easy access to state your opinion and argue with someone else’s opinion. I don’t see anyone trying to solve the problems today. It does nothing for communication in politics.
Now, granted, I realize that each bulletin board has some type of mediator who decides what should be posted and what should not be posted. As seen by the two discussion boards brought up in class, Talking Points Memo is put on by John Micah Marshall and Daily Kos is put on by someone with the alias Kos. Marshall has put his name and picture out there for people to see. That is admirable because he is taking some sort of responsibility for what is posted by showing his face, it the face of who to blame for those who find his weblog to be controversial and who is praised for his contributions to politics.
One thing I did notice was that most of the responses were posted on a website different than the political blog. What the blog provide was the link to a different website to where you could read more on the situation and post a response. The political blogs themselves seemed very exclusive to me, which has a lot to do with the moderator and his choices. A posting here made by a Paul Kiel provides a link to another discussion board. Here is where you can find numerous responses to the ad with the coffin draped flags ( http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/ )which raised a lot of controversy. However, there are none on the original blog, Talking Points Memo. Now granted, this could be unique to just this blog but it does show a lot about that particular website moderator. Maybe he doesn’t want a public response to each posting in order to maintain his exclusiveness. Or maybe Paul Kiel is a member of many different websites and put his article wherever he wanted.
Another thing that stood out to me in these blogs is the amount of postings these sites get everyday and even every hour, even though the majority of TPM were put on by Marshall himself. Some might be in response to something posted previously but if you are not on top on your web postings game, you will be easy over looked. Another reason why this is not communication. The topics move to swiftly and to rapidly for anything to be accomplished.
However, it was interesting to see the differences between political blogs. Daily Kos consisted of much lengthier posting than Talking Points Memo, they are both weblogs but both extremely different.
Therefore, these weblogs can not be considered communication. It is merely another outlet for people to complain and harp over the issues or gossip over the latest political news. But I do believe that bulletin boards have great potential in politics if their focus could be slightly redirected towards resolution and listening to what each other are saying. Maybe then, people will take more of an interest in politics.

Approaching Election Day: Incivility is Worse than Ever

2006-11-02T15:55:00.000-08:00

With less than a week to Election Day, the bitter rivalries between the Democrats and Republicans are growing stronger. The topic of incivility is not new, but the closer we get to November 7, politicians are bashing each other left and right. The race has even become sexually explicit. How much is too much? When is it time for the public to cry foul and refuse to be a part of these disgusting ads, accusations, and downright lies?

One such instance of incivility that particularly caught my attention was the race for position in the Virginia Senate. Both candidates have completely abandoned political issues altogether and are now attacking the personal lives of one another. Republican George Allen had been behind in the polls, and he tried to this problem by attacking what Democrat Jim A. Webb had written. No, it wasn’t a proposal, a new education bill, or even a political speech he wrote. It was six novels that Webb had written. All the novels are based on war; some are fictional, including the one currently under fire, “Something to Die For”
(For reviews of the book click here http://www.jameswebb.com/reviews/diefor.htm.)
When I first heard about this incivility, my reaction was that the book probably contained something that seemed critical of the current administration at war, or it showed very distinct negative parallels.

I found that I was very wrong. Allen wasn’t going after the actual plot of any of the books, but rather his campaign had thoroughly combed every one of the books to find something incriminating. Allen claimed that Webb is a sexist who is demeaning to women, because of certain sexually explicit passages contained in “Something to Die For”. The Allen campaign has taken fictional passages that Webb has written about characters, not himself, and attributed them to Webb’s actual character. Webb has never uttered anything offensive to women, nor has he verified that his views coincide with that of his characters. But, in Virginia, this is one of the most highly talked about issues presently. It has been all over the newspapers, television, radio, and passages of his books are being sent throughout the internet.

This isn’t the first time that this particular Senate race has been in the media spotlight. You may remember hearing about a comment Allen made earlier in the race. He referred to a campaign employee of Indian descent as “Macaca” because he couldn’t recall the young man’s name. Webb’s campaign attacked immediately, again shifting the campaign issues to nothing that had to do with politics. Although I do think Allen’s comment was different and offensive. I thought it was interesting how both sides are spinning it on the internet. Here, a right wing conservative site discusses an explicit passage in the book http://www.rightwingnews.com/category.php?ent=6620 and in this Democratic blog, the reaction to the Webb incident and the way his supporters are behaving, http://notlarrysabato.typepad.com/doh/2006/10/webb_supporters.html.

It has become increasingly difficult to determine what either of these candidates stand for, and even more difficult to get anyone to care in the midst of all this incivility and chaos. This isn’t about politics. It’s about the personal lives of candidates. I believe it is completely okay to delve in to a politician’s personal life if they are doing something illegal, (like Zoe Baird and her illegal nanny). On the other hand, if it is totally legal and generally accepted (Webb has been a New York Times Bestselling Author for years), then what is the point in bringing it up in the open? I feel that more people in the public should express outrage about this. The public is being manipulated with scandals and outrageous stories, yet no one is speaking about what really matters. I think it is time for us, the voters to cry foul, to let it be known that we want to hear about the real issues. The incivility is only going to get worse if we the constituents fail to raise awareness and speak our minds.

Chocola/Donnelly Debate: Spin-Doctors @ Work

2006-11-02T08:45:00.001-08:00

As we have learned debate is a very important part of the political process. Within the debate-sector of politics, however, we’ve learned that almost more important than the actual debate itself is the analysis that goes on post debate. The spin-doctors on both sides want to make it seem as though their candidate won, focusing on their candidate’s best moments & strengths as well as attacking the opposition.

After doing the Chocola/Donnelly debate exercise in class, I was looking at each of their respective websites wanting to see if the ‘professionals’ got some of the same impressions we did. Of course, both Donnelly and Chocola’s websites had postings announcing each candidate’s victory in the debate. On Chocola’s WEBSITE the headline after the first debate was “Chocola Crushes Donnelly…” Clearly, Chocola’s team of spinners, we’ll call them, was hard at work trying to spin the debate in his favor pointing out Chocola’s strengths and Donnelly’s weaknesses. My favorite part of this article is when it makes reference to the eye contact (an important non-verbal!) that we addressed in class. Brooks Kochvar (Chocola’s chief of staff) said, “While Chocola looked voters in the eye and told them exactly where he stood on the issues important to them, Donnelly evaded on every single one.”

Likewise, shortly after the first debate, a posting on Donnelly’s website was entitled “Joe Donnelly Won the First Debate!” This ARTICLE, however, doesn’t seem to spin the debate in Donnelly’s favor the same way Chocola’s camp did for their candidate. This article merely cites that students at Rochester High School (where the first debate was held) “voted 6-5 that Joe out-performed his opponent, Chris Chocola.” This article doesn’t really play up Donnelly’s strengths, and doesn’t pick on any of Chocola’s weaknesses. Also, I’m not sure how much faith people will put into a poll of high schoolers, most of whom aren’t old enough to vote. There is, however, another ARTICLE on Donnelly’s cite that also refers to the first debate. This article, again though, doesn’t really successfully spin the debate in Donnelly’s favor. This article seems more like the work of a media analyst as it is fairly objective throughout.

I am confused as to why, on Donnelly’s website he wouldn’t have an article about the debate more like the one found on Chocola’s only tipped in his favor. It’s interesting to see that the spinning and analyzing post-debate really is almost as important, if not more, than the debate itself. In these regards I think that Chocola’s spinners do a much better job to get people to believe that their candidate did win the debate. Donnelly’s camp didn’t seem as concerned with this. I'm not sure if this hurt him or not, and I haven't yet heard much about the other debates, but I can't wait for election day when this race will finally be done so we can have our televisions & normal commercials back!

Judge Lally- Green: The Woman's view to a campaign ad.

2006-10-26T12:37:00.000-07:00

As shown in class through various examples, women in politics is a constant uphill battle. They are held at high standards, forced to retaliate in a “nurturing” way, and also are hidden behind a voice in their political ads. To show examples of the way women should present themselves, you will be viewing my mom’s campaign ads in class on Friday, October, 27. She ran for Superior Court Judge of Pennsylvania in 1999.

Maureen Lally-Green had a long road of legal history before she was elected as Superior Court Judge in 1999. She grew up the oldest of eight children. Judge Lally-Green attended Duquesne University for undergraduate school. After graduation, she received a full scholarship to attend Duquesne Law School. Soon after her graduation from law school, she became a lawyer in Washing D.C., and after a few years she moved back to Pittsburgh Pennsylvania to work with Westinghouse. During this time she also became a part time professor at Duquesne Law School. She decided that teaching was her passion and left Westinghouse to become a full time teacher. Judge Lally-Green was soon asked to be a consultant for the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. It was not until 1998 when an opening was available in the Superior Court, and Governor Tom Ridge asked her to fill it until the next election.

The election process for Judge Lally-Green was not easy. She was seeing how her partner's, Richard Klein, campaign was run much differently than her own. An important different was the amount of money that was received. Judge Klein seemed to receive more donations from a larger range of charitable functions. Also, he was able to say and do things that the other Judge Lally-Green and Judge Todd were not allowed to do because they are women.

Throughout the ads we see that Judge Maureen Lally-Green never speaks. She is in business attire and in a professional atmosphere, or she is casual dress talking to family members. The voice that we hear is a male voice, who lists all of her accomplishments. Also, it is emphasized how the governor nominated her, and she was given the highest ranking. When watching the video, the male’s voice emphasizes these two points.

The second ad was created out of fear of a negative ad being placed on Judge Lally-Green. Instead of an attack ad, she had to take a new approach. She had to appear as a dedicated family member and also loving mother to reach her audience on a more personal level. We hear the male’s voice in the second ad state how she is dedicated to “serving our families and protecting the future.” A goal that was discussed with all of the candidates: How will they protect the future? Although it was very quickly mentioned, the topic was attacked stating that she was dedicated to the future.

Also in the second ad many visuals were used. She used her family and her parents to show her various behaviors. It shows her dedication to family by saying, “she grew up the oldest of eight children.” This ad shows a picture of her two parents: Frank and Charlotte Lally in their military uniforms from the Second World War. The camera scans across pictures of her family, and we hear “…dedicated to family and country.” This can allow her to relate to a wide variety of people through family, children, and military

Kentucky Mudslinging Campaigns

2006-10-23T19:45:00.000-07:00

While looking on factcheck.org, I came across the story entitled “Kentucky Mudslinging: Accusations without Evidence”. This article is about an ad released on October 13th, that Republican Representative, Mike Lewis aired about his opponent, Retired Colonel Mike Weaver. This is an attack ad on Col. Weaver and a scandal that the ad said he was involved in.

Ron Lewis for Congress: "Not Fit for Duty"

Announcer: The pay for promotion scandal. Kentucky National Guardsmen up for promotion are forced to make political contributions. Twenty-four Guardsmen refuse . . .
(On screen: Apparent newspaper headlines: "Ex-Guard officer gets probation." "Guard colonel admits illegal fund raising.")

Announcer: . . . then Mike Weaver's retention board recommends the dismissal of these Guardsmen.
(On screen: Two more apparent newspaper headlines layered on the first ones: "Probe continues into contributions by Guard members," "Politics seeped into Guard's ranks.")

Announcer: The FBI is called in to investigate.
(On screen: Weaver's Retention Board Recommends Dismissal of Guardsmen next to stark black and white photo of Weaver)

Announcer: Weaver's superiors go to jail and Weaver admits he was instrumental in firing the Guardsmen.
(On screen: Weaver 'Instrumental' in Firing Guardsmen next to black and white photo of Weaver)

Announcer: Col. Weaver, disgraceful conduct, not fit for duty in Congress.
(On screen: Colonel Weaver -- Disgraceful Conduct next to black and white photo of Weaver talking)

Lewis: I'm Ron Lewis and I approve this message.
(On screen: Color shot of Lewis with apparent veterans)
(Paid for by Ron Lewis for Congress)

This ad attacks on the basis of having no foundation for the accusations. When Lewis announced this ad in a news conference he even went as far to suggest that Col. Weaver should drop out of the race saying he “shouldn’t be elected dogcatcher”. His so-called evidence, to back up the accusations of Weaver’s involvement with the scandal was seventeen old newspaper clippings, which NONE of them suggest Weaver did anything illegal. Only one mentioned Weaver as an independent member of the board.

After this ad was released and Lewis was questioned on which laws he said that Weaver broke, but to this Lewis replied that he couldn’t name them, according to newspaper articles written after the conference. Factcheck.org came up that the ad is the only thing showing disgraceful conduct.

I tried to find the exact visual ad but I came up unsuccessful, all I could locate was the written out form of the ad (shown above). However, I did come across a news story about the two candidates and their attacks on one another. This race really has become a “mudslinging” affair because in this interview, Weaver’s supporters are attacking Lewis and his military record.
This was aired on television on September 6, 2006 and can be viewed here:

Weaver denied these allegations claiming that he did not care if Lewis actually served in the army or not, all he cared about was the issues and what Lewis planned on doing for the Kentucky government. These two seem to be attacking each other so much that it may be discouraging Kentucky voters. We talked about this in class when we discussed all the types of ads, attack ads can get the point across about the weaknesses of your opponent, but at the same time, it can make voters annoyed because there is so much negativity behind the ads. With the race getting closer and closer to an end, hopefully Kentucky as well as other states can move away from the “mudslinging” and hear more of the political issues.

MLK: A Republican???

2006-10-23T10:50:00.000-07:00

The National Black Republican Association released a radio advertisement last week that stated that the late Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican. This ad is based off an article written by the head of the NBRA, Frances Rice. A swift reaction to the ad emerged and the NBRA website has received thousands of hits and feedback from respected politicians and civil rights leaders. "We've gotten some e-mails and telephone calls filled with vitriol," said Frances Rice. "They've called me Aunt Jemima, a sellout, a traitor to my race."

The current campaign season has brought out a fierce fight between Republicans and Democrats for the possession of the African American vote. The majority of black voters is liberal and has long disagreed with conservatives’ public policies and economic strategies. These have often failed to better the lives of the majority of the African American population. Black liberals were outraged when the some Republicans tried to put the civil rights movement into a conservative light.

Rice said the spot has already run in the District of Columbia, Georgia, Maryland, Ohio and Pennsylvania. It will continue to rerun in those areas and also be seen in Miami, Orlando and Tampa. It is the latest in the struggle in the battle to own the legacy of King. However, liberals are not the only group outraged by the ads suggestions. A large number of black conservatives disagree as well.

Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele is a Republican who is running for the U.S. Senate. He was one of the first to publicly denounce the King ad. “NBRA’s current radio ad is insulting to Marylanders and should come down immediately," said the Steele campaign statement. "Although they may have had good intentions, there is no room for this kind of slash-and-burn partisan politics in the important conversation about how to best bring meaningful change to Washington, D.C. and get something done for Maryland." Additionally, Donald E. Scoggins, president of Republicans for Black Empowerment and a former member of the NBRA, said it was a terrible idea. "The vast majority of black Republicans I know would not have approved of the ad," Scoggins said.

On October 19, 2006, Rice was quoted in the Washington Post saying, "I absolutely do not regret the ads. He absolutely was a Republican," she insisted. "We were all Republicans in those days. The Democrats were training fire hoses on us, siccing dogs on us."

It is historically accurate that many blacks were Republicans early in America’s history. Southern Democrats or "Dixiecrats" blocked the social and political progress of black Southerners for decades so most Southern African Americans were drawn to the Republican Party. However, it is another issue to suggest that the civil rights leader, King, was also loyal to this affiliation. In 1960, King was arrested for trespassing during a sit-in and sent to prison. Presidential candidate John F. Kennedy was able to get King released and King’s father encouraged African Americans to vote for Kennedy. After Kennedy was assassinated, Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act in Kennedy’s memory. This gave blacks the right to vote. That began four decades of black people voting for liberals.

I believe that this ad is another attempt at negative partisan campaigning. Each party is trying to posses a version of the past. Instead of championing King as a leader in an important movement, they have reduced him to a debate over his party identification. African American votes should be appealed to on the grounds of their current intelligence, not who supported or persecuted them in the past. The NBRA’s add is another example of a misleading emotional appeal.

Here is a transcript of the NBRA’s ad:
Script: National Black Republican Association 60-Second Radio Spot Paid for by the Black Republican Freedom Fund, an NBRA 527 affiliate Not authorized by any candidate or political committee
Pam: Dr. King was a real man.
Tina: You know . . he was a Republican.
Pam: Dr. King, a Republican? Really?
Tina: Democrats passed those Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan.
Pam: The Klan . . . White hoods and sheets?!
Tina: Democrats fought ALL Civil Rights Legislation from the 1860’s to the 1960’s. Democrats released those vicious dogs and fire hoses on blacks.
Pam: Seriously!
Tina: And the Dixiecrats? Remained Democrats and vowed to vote for a yellow dog, before a Republican. Republicans freed us from slavery and put our right to vote in the Constitution.
Pam: What?
Tina: Republicans started the NAACP, affirmative action and the HBCU’s.
Pam: Democrats have bamboozled blacks.
Tina: Democrats blocked the minimum wage passed by Republicans. Over 200 billion dollars have been spent on education, healthcare and job training since President Bush took office.
Pam: So, Democrats want to keep us POOR and voting ONLY Democrat.
Tina: Democrats want us to accept same-sex marriages; teen abortions without a parent’s consent and suing the Boy Scouts for saying “God” in their pledge.
Pam: We NEED to THINK! and vote OUR own values.
Tina: Exactly… Democrats have talked the talk, but Republicans have walked the walk.
Pam: I hear ya girl. It time for us to “DO” the walk.
(Together they laugh about it.)

New Technologies in Political Campaigns

2006-10-12T17:27:00.000-07:00

I have noticed the increasing in trends to utilize nontraditional mediums when campaigning. Most of these unusual methods are due to the increase in technological advances over the past several years. Simply actively campaigning through television commercials and public appearances are not enough anymore. Candidates must reach out to the public in new and innovative ways in order to capture the most attention.
Now that we are in the 21st century, methods such as radio and television are becoming far too traditional in the sense that they do not grab the voter’s attention anymore. Especially with the recent trend of increased negative advertising, voters are especially turned off to all forms of political campaigning. This link is an article discussing the affects of negative advertising on voters. We have touched on all the topics in this article in class.
The focus of this entry is the tactics used by Jacob Colker and others like him in his race for the Democratic nomination for a statewide office in Maryland. Reading this article will give you a more detailed look at the newest tactics used by candidates.
This article details Colker’s strategies in trying to attract the young voters. He took his campaign to a new level when he decided to go after the market in which the networking sites, MySpace.com and Facebook.com are widely popular. He first noticed that despite what most think, young adults do care about what happens with regards to the United States government. As most of us know, there is a section of personal information in which you can dictate your political views. Most recently, on Facebook, there has been a section added in which you can tell which issues you are most concerned about for the upcoming election.
It has become clear that with new technological advancements, those who know how to operate and manipulate them most effectively will have a significant advantage when it comes time for the polls to open. Thus, if candidates know how to network the Facebook and MySpace communities effectively, they will attract more voters and more supporters of their platforms. The article points out that “with the public so polarized, achieving even slight shifts in support can produce decisive gains on Election Day, particularly in a midterm election that typically is dominated by core partisans.”

“Right now, that's the best way to reach youth," said Colker

Knowing that most of us hold a MySpace and/or Facebook account, do you feel that by using those networking sites as a mode for campaigning and recruiting, we are being manipulated to join the political process through no control of our own? Do you feel that although you joined these sites as a way to network with others your age, candidates will soon try to contact you to ask for your vote (similar to a reinvented telemarketing system)? Do you think this is a good thing or a bad thing?

Political Blogging

2006-10-12T14:29:00.000-07:00

I originally wanted to post on gaffes in debates. However, when I was looking on the Internet I came across several political blogs or discussion boards, which I found more interesting. These blogs can be found on virtually every topic from the war to abortion and even smaller topics, which don’t receive national attention. The more I read through the blogs the more they reminded me of talk radio, which we recently discussed in class. Like radio this blogs are anti-establishment, give the public a place to voice their opinion, and are often low quality uncivilized debates.
Most of the blogs I found where extremely partisan; just by looking at the titles of the blogs you can tell immediately who is writing on them, for example www.democraticunderground.com, meat-eating leftist, and Bush Country. Almost every blog had a clear partisan, either by political party or by political belief. Even the blogs that claimed to be non-partisan normally ended up favoring a certain side. The blogs also provided a certain amount of fact checking in mass media. For example, on http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1233825/posts almost the entire post was devoted toward proving that a Newsweek poll, which placed Kerry ahead of Bush, was in fact fixed. The bloggers have several different “facts” to prove the theory however, there is no way of knowing where they got these “facts” and if they are valid.
I was really surprised by the amount of people who were posting on these blogs, several blogs have a daily audience and the writers have become celebrity figures, with certain writers even appearing on political television shows. Like radio, these blogs give the average Joe a chance to voice his opinion. Some of the writing is very professional and serious while other writings were extremely elementary. The fact that these blogs are anonymous has made them extremely uncivilized. It is not uncommon for a blogger to call a fellow blogger or a politician several different things, none of which are particularly kind. This raises the same question as radio; does this form of communication cheapen politics?
Finally, the thing I think will greatly influence politics in the future is blogging by the politicians themselves. (This is a list of a few politicians’ personal blogs http://www.ncsl.org/programs/lis/NALIT/blogs.htm) While I didn’t notice any big name politicians in the list there is still a considerable amount of them joining the blogging age. There are also several blogs by challengers, during the election season. I am wondering if by the presidential election, if politicians’ personal blogs will have any affect on the election? This reminds me of when politicians first started campaigning for themselves; perhaps in the future politicians’ blogging will be common and even expected?
It seems like today all we hear about is the decline in radio, maybe blogging is the next talk radio.

Here are several other websites to find political blogs -

http://www.campaignline.com/blogs/
http://www.davidadelman.info/
http://directory.etalkinghead.com/?ax=list&cat_id=1
http://www.chatmag.com/topics/politics/politics.html

Vernon Robinson: Would you vote for him?

2006-10-10T22:47:00.000-07:00

Initially, I had no idea what topic I wanted to discuss for this post. Then as I was rereading previous entries, I remembered Jeney’s post about Vernon Robinson had really intrigued me. I had not been able to view Robinson’s attack ad on Miller at that time and decided to go to youtube.com and see if I could find it. I could not find that particular ad, but what I did found really sparked my interest. Robinson has three other political advertisements running right now, one of which is quite unique and different. The first ad was a typical juxtaposition ad (click here). It clearly contrasted Vernon Robinson with Congressman Brad Miller. The first 40 seconds blames Congressman Miller for the influx of illegal Mexican immigrants into the country. He says that it is because of congressmen like Miller hardworking Americans are not getting the jobs they deserve. The ad continues to show that these immigrants do not respect what the American government has given them and that it is time for change. There is no other choice but to vote for Robinson because he will make a difference.
The next advertisement I looked was an attack ad, but it was not attacking the other candidate like most do. It is actually attacking the American government. As well as mocking the modern American culture (click here). At the end of the ad, Robinson states, “I approve of this message and of traditional American values”. I understand that Vernon Robinson is ultra conservative and the issues he is fighting to end are extremely liberal. But I do not understand what Robinson’s thinking was when he decided to create this political advertisement? Does he really think that by airing this ad he will gain more support? I believe quite the opposite is true. I do not think he took into consideration how many people, whether they are liberal or not, he is offending with this ad. He is stating that some of the values that today’s Americans hold are not “true American values”.
Finally, I found Robinson is doing some political advertising that is really quite different and creative (click here). He is attacking Congressman Miller through the use of a telephone. A man’s voice comes on the line and says to vote for Robinson because thanks to Congressman Miller our tax dollars are going to help sustain illegal Mexican immigrants within our country. Then it becomes a ridicule ad via the phone, when another man begins singing (in a country style) as to why you should not re-elect Congressman Brad Miller. I think it helped Robinson in a unique way to get his platform out to the public. But I also think it harmed him too because who would take a political advertisement like that seriously and if I received a call like that more than once, it would get real annoying real fast.
If I was voting in that election I would not vote for Vernon Robinson. Overall, he has good ideas as to how to get his message out to the public, but they are all overly offensive. Every single ad stated that the American government needed to do something to keep illegal Mexican immigrants out of our country. There was really no diversity in the ads, they all looked the same. That our government does not believe in traditional American values. Would you vote for him?

Stand by Your Ad

2006-10-05T20:32:00.000-07:00

“Stand by Your Ad”

Negative Ads are becoming more and more of an issue in today’s society. Candidates are getting farther away from the issues and are more focused on defending themselves or attacking another. We went over in class the reasons for negative advertising and they all have been deemed effective in terms of getting attention and getting something to stick in the audiences memory. But when is enough enough?
In 2002, the campaign Finance Reform Act created the “stand by your ad” law. This law requires candidates of a federal office to take responsibility for all their political ads by showing a full screen picture of themselves and by having a voice over telling the audience that they approved the message being sent out. The hope in this is that any candidate will think twice about creating an attack as on an opponent because they are now personally attached to the ad. FactCheck.org seems to be optimistic about this law, the idea that “anyone slinging mud will have to do it personally, and risk getting splattered by their own missiles” seems to be effective so far. It seems as if candidates are actually starting to veer off of attack ads because of this new law.
I chose this topic because of its ongoing controversy involving political advertisements. Political ads, more specifically negative ads, were increasingly becoming more inaccurate and less focused on the actual issues. Every candidate just wanted to make the other guy look bad. It starts a vicious circle of attacks that is difficult to do away with totally. Controversy, fights, and attacks are what get attention in this nation, but at what stake? The stake of the success of our nation and our nation’s politics. If the attack ads are the things that get all the attention, then how do the issues get attention? If all political campaigns are bases on is making the opponent look bad then what is getting accomplished?
“Stand by your ad” is bringing some integrity back into politics. Its creates accountability on behalf of the candidate and his campaign. Maybe this will make candidate think twice about what they say. An example of a candidate taking responsibility for is ad is by giving a message approval statement. Such as in John Kerry’s “Yours hands” ad ( ). As you can see, some candidates are still finding other, less obtrusive ways to go negative. It is more indirect.
According to CNN.com the “stand by your ad” law also put an end to the contributions of “soft money”, which involves money contributions from private parties that are unregulated and unlimited. And it limits advocacy ads right before the election and contributions made to the candidates. These are all attempts to even the playing field in political advertising.
I think this law is at least a step in the right direction for political advertisements. It shows that the government is at least taking a stand against negative advertising and making people take responsibility for what they say, in front of the nation. In an article found at LookSmart.com (under "stand by your ad" they discuss the positive and negative aspects of this law. While some believe that this law changes the tone of negative ads, putting the focus back on the issues, others hold that there is simply not enough proof to tell. Also there is the fact that this law has only been around for 4 years so the long term outcome of this law is impossible to determine.
However, in spite all the attempts of the government, they can not do anything about the ads put out by independent groups. A highly controversial ad put out in the last presidential election was the swift boat ad (CNN.com). As you can see, there is no one to take responsibility for this ad. No face to blame. But at least in terms of the candidates, something is being done. Candidates are going to think twice about what message they send out to the nation and maybe they will even check their facts first. Only time will tell where negative advertising will go from now.

Was Clinton "Outfoxed" ?

2006-10-04T19:01:00.000-07:00

I wanted to focus my blog on an issue we are currently covering, which is the Mainstream Media’s relationship with politicians and the overall media influence on the political system. In particular I want to focus on Bill Clinton’s recent interview on Fox News. Fox is known to be a very conservative and Right Wing network, as documented by the movie “Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism”. The interview in question was aired on September 22 and was done by Chris Wallace. It started off with pretty basic questions and both were acting amicably. Then Wallace turns the tables by telling Clinton that all Fox viewers want to know why he didn’t do more to stop Osama Bin Laden.

Obviously the interview is about to move in a different direction and the open hostility between the two is apparent. The entire time that they are talking, they constantly keep cutting one another off. It seems surreal to see it unfolding in to a full scale yelling match. Clinton responds to the question, calmly at first then intensifies his point, by saying, “I think it’s very interesting that all the conservative Republicans, who now say I didn’t do enough, claimed that I was too obsessed with bin Laden. All of President Bush’s neo-cons thought I was too obsessed with bin Laden.”

Clinton counterattacks the conservative Wallace by blaming the Republicans for the recent criticism of Clinton’s lack of pursuing Al Quaida, according to republicans, and his over pursuing of bin Laden by Democrats. It has become an incredibly “he said, she said” battle. He calls Bush’s supporters “neo-cons” which in itself could be seen as a derogatory name. Clinton continues to get infuriated as Wallace continues his attack. Wallace continually cuts Clinton off mid sentence, and Clinton even responds mid answer “This is bull”.

The question that is brought to mind is if the media really is controlling the way we think? How do we determine if the news itself is what is biased? Who is responsible for watching our supposed “watch dogs”? There are really no provisions for a media outlet to be checked on what they say unless by competing news media, or extensive research, like the “Outfoxed” documentary. Even if someone were to write in a few weeks the inaccuracies and leading questions Wallace asked, the damage is already done. What will stick in people’s minds is that Clinton was being blamed for knowing beforehand about al Qaida and doing nothing to stop it. No one will remember the follow up that relieved him of any wrongdoing (which some have been trying to do by citing the 9/11 Commission Report). This interview is a perfect example of agenda setting by the media. Fox News could have focused the entire interview on Clinton’s humanitarian efforts, the Clinton Global Initiative or the upcoming election, but they chose their own conservative agenda. Clinton even accuses Wallace of luring him there under false pretenses saying, “[You] said that you’d spend half the time talking about — you said you’d spend half the time talking about what we did out there to raise $7-billion-plus in three days from 215 different commitments. And you don’t care.”

The reason the al Qaida topic was raised, and not the humanitarian efforts is that this takes away criticism on the current Bush administration by showing the former administration had the same knowledge and more time. Fox is telling the American public to start equating our current problems in Iraq, 9/11, and al Qaida with Clinton and not Bush. Fox was successful because this has been talked about very heavily for the last few weeks. The most often raised question is did Clinton know and do enough? Which was Fox’s intention, it was the issue they covered, and that is what infiltrated the public’s interest.

Clinton realizes he has been caught up in the middle of an agenda setting interview by saying, “Well, there’s a reason it’s on people’s minds. That’s the point I’m trying to make. There’s a reason it’s on people’s minds: Because there’s been a serious disinformation campaign to create that impression.” Clinton acknowledges that he feels ambushed by saying “So you did Fox’s bidding on this show. You did your nice little conservative hit job on me.”

Although Fox News asked the questions, they have tried to spin the interview in to Clinton as the aggressor. The Chief of Fox News, Roger Ailes said, “Bill Clinton's response to Fox anchor Chris Wallace's question about efforts he made to pursue Osama Bin Laden was an assault on all journalists." This entire Clinton interview is a perfect illustration of media’s influence and incivility in politics.

Scandal Rocks Florida Race for the House

2006-10-03T20:27:00.000-07:00

In an election year in which every seat counts, the Republicans now find it a bit harder to keep control of the House. (The democrats need a net 15 seat gain to regain power.) Last Friday, Florida Republican Congressman Mark Foley resigned after six terms amidst an Internet scandal. Click here for a brief synopsis of the story. (Pages are high school students who get to work with law makers in Washington.) Foley was, according to the Associated Press, considered a "shoo-in for re-election." Now the allegations are getting ugly. The democrats are using this scandal to their advantage, calling this "an election year cover up." Many are suggesting high ranking officials knew about this inappropriate behavior for quite some time and did nothing. The Republicans are holding on for dear life calling for an investigation and trying to do damage control.

Investigations into who knew what, when, will no doubt continue, but for now the Republicans have named a replacement candidate, Joe Negron. This is where the story gets really interesting. It is too late to print revised ballots so Foley's name will remain on the ballot as the Republican choice. Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, believes Negron can prevail no matter the circumstances. I have to think that Bush is being overly optimistic. When you go to vote, and see the name of a man who's done inappropriate things with children, would you honestly mark his name as your choice? Not only that, but Negron has, what, a MONTH to try to overcome talk of this scandal and gain recognition and respect as a viable candidate? I think that it would be hard enough for him to do so, but not even having his name communicated on the ballot makes it even more difficult.

Now the democratic candidate, Tim Mahoney, has begun running new television ads featuring Democratic Senator Bob Graham calling Mahoney someone who "believes in faith, family, and personal responsibility." Its no coincidence that these are the very values Foley has just shattered for the Republican party.

This is an interesting race all around. How far are the democrats willing to go, and just how much of this will they use to their advantage? Will the investigation into the Foley scandal reveal even more corruption than we think? Can Negron mount a legitimate campaign in such turmoil and such short notice? And ultimately, how will Floridians vote? Will they turn to the democrats in the face of scandal or will they vote republican even though the ballot will show that they are voting for a man who's acted innapropriately--with children no less? Only time will tell, but Negron certainly has a difficult month ahead.

False Accusations Made in "Sex Research" by Congressman

2006-09-28T20:57:00.000-07:00

I had initially wanted to post about women, their role in politics, and my personal opinion on the topic. Then I found something more interesting.

We have been discussing and debating whether or not we feel it is acceptable for politicians to utilize negative attacks ads. While we came to a consensus about false ads being a definite no, we could not come to a clear decision on accurate false ads. While browsing Factcheck.org, I found a perfect example of an infuriating false negative attack ad.

The ad, approved by Republican House candidate Vernon Robinson, accuses current Democratic Congressmen Brad Miller of using funds to research various sex studies rather than things like sickle-cell research and body amour for our troops overseas. The ad specifies those studies by stating that Miller “voted to spend your money to study the sex lives of Vietnamese prostitutes in San Francisco . . . spent your money to study the masturbation habits of old men . . . something called the Bisexual Transgendered and Two-Spirited Aleutian Eskimos, whoever they are, even spent your tax dollars to pay teenage girls to watch pornographic movies with probes connected to their genitalia.” Ad watch points out that these descriptions are only superficial and go deeper than the way Republican House candidate Vernon Robinson claims. The studies were actually intended to slow the spread of AIDS, attempt to understand homosexuality, and improve the lives of senior citizens as their sex function declines. Robinson also exaggerated the fact that Miller did not vote in the bid for new body armor for our troops. He actually did not vote at all because he was on his way to Iraq to see the troops in person. More information on this ad and a video of it can be found here, and the specific documentation about each grant received for the sex research can be found here.

While this ad definitely grabs your attention and evokes emotion, its fallacies and outrageousness cause it to evoke the opposite of what Robinson was shooting for. It almost runs along the line of a typical attack ad and a ridicule ad. If voters are already fed up with negative attack ads, what made Robinson’s campaigners think this ad was a good idea? It oversimplifies the issue, stretches the truth, and actually makes himself look bad rather than his opponent. It is just simply tasteless and sloppy. While the ad watch does give Robinson free advertising to his campaign, I completely agree with Johnnie. These inaccuracies need to be pointed out because they are obviously already out of control.

Small-budget Attacks v. Large-budget Vision: A Look at Hutchison and Radnofsky’s Campaign Ads

2006-09-27T17:59:00.000-07:00

When browsing through The New York Times’ election guide (click on Texas) I noticed that in Texas the Senatorial race consists of two women running against each other. This sparked some curiosity in their advertising techniques. We discussed in class whether or not two women running against each other would change the nature of their advertising, including the option of running attack ads or taking on more unconventional roles for women.

Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison is the Republican incumbent and Barbara Ann Radnofsky is her Democratic challenger. The New York Time’s election guide suggests that Kay Bailey Hutchison is safe in this race.

First, I noticed the two different types of advertising the women chose. Senator Hutchison clearly has a much larger campaign budget than Radnofsky: the Senator’s 4.8 million dollars versus Radnofsky’s 1.1 million dollars is a significant difference. When I visited Senator Hutchison’s website, her media page included the latest television commercial she has released, while Radnofsky’s website offered clips of her radio commercials. This makes sense because Radnofsky, being the challenger, does have a smaller budget; she can’t afford television commercials as Senator Hutchison can. So she had to take the next best option, radio, which Trent and Friedenberg mention is considered generally inexpensive and can target audiences (356).

Even more interesting than the medium the two women chose was their content and approaches. Both women took a very different approach. In Radnofsky’s radio ads, she uses attack ads. She attacks Senator Hutchison’s record. One could argue that Radnofsky is violating the expectancy of women in public. She is not complying with traditional communication for women which Trent and Friedenberg explain include compassion, emotionality, sensitivity and nurturing (166). Such qualities obviously do not sit well in a traditional attack ad. However, Radnofsky combats this by blending both “masculine and feminine strategies” as Trent and Friedenberg suggest in order to “‘accommodate gender-based stereotypes of femininity even while using a campaign tool that is inherently aggressive. . .” (171). For example, Radnofsky attacks the issues (such as tax dollars spent under Hutchison’s time as Senator) rather than Hutchison’s character, which is less aggressive than attacking one’s character. She may have thought that she could prevent some backlash by taking a slightly less controversial approach in her attacks. Trent and Friedenberg mention that by attacking the issue rather than character a woman can “maintain the feminine image, and thus preserve at least some normative expectations” (170). As a challenger, Radnofsky most likely felt that attack ads were necessary to give her any chance in the campaign. Trent and Friendenberg also mention three situations that tend to favor attack ads and Radnofsky clearly fits two of those characteristics: “low-budget campaigns” and “campaigns of challengers” (169).

Hutchison on the other hand does not use attack ads. Her television ad is what I would consider a “visionary ad.” She is presented as above all the rest; a true leader for the state of Texas. She also blends masculine and feminine strategies; yet, hers is for a positive image of herself rather than to create a successful attack against Radnofsky. Hutchison most likely uses the masculine strategies in order to connect with the people of her state. She is “the first women from Texas elected to the US Senate” and is “the highest ranking women in Senate leadership” as the ad highlights. This shows that she is not in a state where it would be easy to be elected to office as a woman. The masculine techniques she uses include a “male voiceover,” “discussion of experience or competence,” and a “visual picture of a candidate dressed in a highly professional/business manner” (170). Trent and Friedenberg mention that these qualities can help “project the masculine image of strength, competence, and qualifications” (170). She also strongly feminizes the ad as well. Her ad is all about positive discussion about herself, she “understands our [Texans] needs; understands our [Texans] people.” She “connects with every inch of it [Texas].” She is a “senator for all Texas.” The ad shows visuals that are feminine including landscapes of Texas, tractors in the fields, a teacher, many images of children and senior citizens, as well as firefighters, ordinary citizens, and multiple images of the Texas flag. The ad also shows Senator Hutchison in more relaxed situations such as talking with children and senior citizens. There is music in the background which also can feminize the ad. Finally, Senator Hutchison really combines both masculine and feminine strategies when she talks about both “soft” and “hard” issues. The ad briefly addresses tax cuts, border patrol, strengthening military, protection from terrorism, veteran and senior legislation, education, as well as science/technology research.

Both women decided that mixing both masculine and feminine strategies would be advantageous to their campaigns. However, Radnofsky did so in attack ads and Hutchison did so in a visionary ad. Their choices clearly have a lot to do with the resources they have as well as their own position (established Senator versus new challenger). Whether Radnofsky’s approach works or is generally rejected, I suppose we will find out. I believe she has a much greater chance to see a backlash against her ads than does Senator Hutchison. Senator Hutchison’s ad in my opinion is something anyone could expect from an established woman candidate. She certainly is not ruffling any feathers, while Radnofsky goes out on a bit of limb to attack the position of her opponent. It will be interesting to see the results in November.

Ad Watches For Dishonest Advertising In Ohio

2006-09-27T08:01:00.000-07:00

All week in class we have been debating the use of negative ads and questioning the ethics of dishonest ads. I found an example of the controversy in the senate race in Ohio. I used this sight to find this race and it lists all the other races too (thanks Chelsea)… Election Guide. The senate race is between republican incumbent, Mike DeWine, and democratic challenger, Sherrod Brown.

What is happening in Ohio? DeWine was down in polls until he aired a series of commercials about Brown saying that Brown voted against bills important to national security. The commercials are all about how voting for Brown would be dangerous for the country and we would be in danger because Brown vote would weaken the security of this nation. The interesting thing about these ads is Brown is contesting them. On his campaign website, Brown posts an ad watch with corrections to the ads, Brown ad watch. Brown actually uses DeWine’s dishonesty in his ads as grounds to attack back. As we said in class, it is really hard to prove defamation because you have to prove that the slandering was done in “actual malice,” so Brown just turns the inaccurate information around and attacks DeWine with it.

Because the ad watch is very partial to Brown, seeing as it was on his website, I feel it is important to look a non-partisan view of the situation. I used Fact Check for this because Fact Check is usually pretty fair and objective in their analysis. (You can watch some of DeVine’s ads on this site, but I had to use a PC to see them because my Mac would not play the videos.) It was interesting to find out that Brown also distorted voting records the same way DeWine did. Brown accuses DeWine of not protecting America before September 11th and that he voted to increase trade with China at the expensive of American jobs. Both of those charges are manipulated and not entirely true and therefore dishonest.

Both parties are guilty of slandering the other and exaggerating facts. I feel that it is important for both candidates to speak out against the slander, but the candidates also need to realize that they are guilty of distorting facts too. Ad watches are very helpful I feel because, as we learned in class, they do reveal “distortion and inaccuracies,” prevent further “distortion and inaccuracies,” and they also, especially in Browns case, are useful for a candidate’s response against those ads that are inaccurate.

I feel it is necessary for the media to continue ad watching, even if it does give the candidate free advertising, because it does keep an advertising media in check that would otherwise be free to do whatever it wanted to whether it was truthful or not. I would like to see an end to these negative and untruthful ads, but I am not sure that is possible because, as we said in class, censoring would be a violation of the first amendment. At least as watches give the candidates a way to fight back when they are being attacked with false information. I will be interested to see if Brown’s technique of using DeWine’s distortions against him will help him in the race.

These people want to kill us!

2006-09-21T18:00:00.000-07:00

In this particular ad that I found on FactCheck.org, it exemplifies a tactic that many politicians use in their political campaigns: fear. Here is a video of that ad. Also, on FactCheck.org ,there is a brief synopsis of the script as well as a supplementary analysis. This ad was created to address the increasing amount of terrorist threats on America during the 2004 campaign between George W. Bush and John Kerry. The main reason that this message is particularly effective is because this advertisement was purposely aired on September 7. It is not a coincidence that that the three-year anniversary of the September 11 attacks was just around the corner. The September 11 attacks three years prior coupled with the recent attacks in England are the main focuses.

The ad begins with the hard-hitting line, “These people want to kill us.” The ad continues by using such harsh words as “innocent civilians,” “attack,” extreme ideology,” and “we have narrowly escaped another 9/11.” These words and phrases are used in the ad campaign in order to strike fear into the hearts of the viewers. This television advertisement is one that is supposed to be pro-Bush. However, as you can see by the text, there is no mention of his platforms, ideas, or proposals for the future anywhere. Therefore, this ad is not meant to be an informative one, but an ad compiled of clever persuasion tactics to win over audiences.
Many candidates feel that they can utilize fear to influence the voter turnout or audience response. For the most part, it will work, especially in this particular example when the campaign is trying to frighten the voters into believing that there will definitely be further terrorist attacks on America. I am not saying that this will not happen for sure, because no one knows what will happen in the future. However, the creators of this campaign message are able to tap into a major fear that many Americans have at this particular time. Contrary to popular belief, the fear of being attacked does not consume the majority of the American people; this ad makes it seem like it does.

I feel that by using the fear of a terrorist attack as a mode of persuasion is unfair, and it can be seen as more of a negative ad than a positive one. By this ad in particular, it will show the campaign as being one of deceit and flashy persuasive strategies as opposed to a campaign with a strong platform. Furthermore, I found it interesting that in this ad, we make it seem like America was responsible for catching and thwarting the terrorist plan involving the US bound planes in England. When, in fact, that was not the case. According to White House advisor, Fran Townsend, “We put every tool at our disposal into use to help our British colleagues. But this really was a British investigation for the longest time. We didn`t see an American threat. It was only recently we developed the American angle working with our British colleagues, but this was really a British threat.”

However, in the grand scheme of things, this ad does achieve all of the functions of negative advertising that we discussed in class. It sets an agenda and grabs the attention of the public. It forces the opponent to defend their position when it references attacks that happened under a previous administration. Finally, by pointing out the fact that that administration did not do anything about the attacks and September 11 soon followed, decreases the opponent’s appeal.

Corner Bar: Attacking Casey's character in 30 seconds

2006-09-21T13:34:00.000-07:00

On September 13, 2006, Republican Senator Rick Santorum aired his newest ad attacking Democratic candidate, Bob Casey. The ad states that Casey’s “campaign team” and biggest contributors are all convicted criminals or currently under investigation by the FBI. (Corner Bar Ad). According to factcheck.org, not one of these “campaign members” are currently working for Bob Casey or have ever worked on a Casey campaign. Only one has ever had an official position, in 2004, while another of the members died two years ago. Most of these members did at one time did donate money, but it was in 2004 or earlier. None of these men have contributed to Bob Casey’s 2006 campaign for Senate. (Click here to see a list of Casey’s current contributors).

According to Trent and Friedenberg, the skillful use of television can be used “as a vehicle for presenting candidates and their messages” (341). The images and ideas candidates present of themselves and of their opponents have a great influence on the audience. This is because political television advertisements appeal to the two most important senses we have: sight and sound. The candidate has only a short time to convince the public that either they are the best person for the job or that their opponent is unfit for the position.

With this in mind, I want to return to the Santorum ad. Senator Santorum has only thirty seconds to get the public to see candidate Casey in an unfavorable light. The way in which he did this was by using a character attack ad. He keys on past contributors of Casey campaign, who have in recent years been under investigation. Within the ad, Santorum makes it seem that Casey’s “campaign team” and, in essence Casey himself, are all criminals. Casey has become a criminal by association. Santorum is trying to make Casey look less desirable to the public, by showing the friends he keeps. If Casey’s contributors have been under investigation, what makes Casey any different? This is way at the end of the commercial the voiceover says “the more we learn about Bob Casey, the more concerned we ought to be.”

I believe that this ad has hurt Bob Casey’s campaign in the fact that the audience does not get the correct facts. All the audience sees is a jail cell full of “crooks” playing cards and smoking cigars. The audience will never know that two of Casey’s “major contributors” have also donated money to previous Santorum campaigns as well. In a thirty second commercial, Santorum has damaged Casey’s character that he has established with the public. The ad never comes out and says that Casey is a crook, but by the tone it definitely implies that because of his past contributors, Casey in fact might be.