Obama has said in recent interviews that his daughters were big fans of the show. However, Barack and Michelle have made an enormous effort to keep the girls out of the media. Should be interesting to see how this shakes out.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Obama's Daughters on Hannah Montana?
Seriously? Add it on to the celebrity status of the Obama family. In an interview with Access Hollywood, Billy Ray Cyrus spoke of his extended invitation for Malia, 10, and Sasha, 7, to appear on an April episode, the UK Telegraph reports.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Patriotic Man Flies Flag Upside-Down in Protest
In Arlington, TX, Patrick O'Toole flew his American flag upside down beneath a solid black flag. O'Toole has proudly raised and lowered his American flag since 9/11. In protest to Obama's win, this has stirred up the entire neighborhood. Neighbor Sharon Garner said, "I just don't think its American. We have children in our neighborhood, and I'm sure their parents have to explain to them why that flag is hanging like that."
When asked by a WFAA reporter, O'Toole defended his action by saying "The black flag is because our country is dying. It's never been as divided as it is right now. And the upside down American flag is because our country is in distress." O'Toole, who is a Navy veteran, further explains that the black flag has absolutely nothing to do with race.
O'Toole stands behind is action and will continue to fly his flags as he sees fit. This is ultimately a free speech issue. His neighbors can ask him to take it down, however he seems pretty set in his beliefs on this.
Video Clip:
http://www.wfaa.com/video/?nvid=301731&shu=1
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Get your papers!
Print news publications did not predict the overwhelming desire for a piece of history and printed proof that Obama is the President Elect. Newsstands were empty mid-day on Wednesday and now copies of the various newspapers are being sold for as much as 200 dollars on e-bay. One man in Baltimore snagged 90 copies at once, reports the International Herald Tribune. Most front pages have a gigantic photo of Obama and a short headline about change, plays on his campaign slogans, history or victory. Above is a collage from the Chicago Sun Times.
You can check out nearly all the newspapers headlines of Obama's victory here.
Even with the internet immortalizing just about everything that goes on in this country from the high school break up to the peaceful transition of power, the value of a printed paper is not lost on Americans
Here are some other front pages from Wednesday. Each of these headlines emphasize the historic victory of our nation's first black president.
.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Election Day Forecasting
The weather might have an effect on voter turnout thus affecting the numbers at the polls. An upper level trough has brought snow to the mountains in the western portion of the U.S. In Virginia and North Carolina, where polls show both candidates in a virtual dead heat, rainy and windy weather will combat with voters there.
The rest of the U.S. doesn't look so bad with moderate temperatures appropriate for this time of year across the board. What possible effects this will have on the election is yet to be seen, but certainly Virginia and North Carolina will feel the effects if nothing else.
As if the bad weather in Virginia weren't enough, there have been reports of problems with the voting machines. In Richmond Virginia, a breakdown of the electronic voting machines "led to a three-and-a-half hour wait to vote".
Monday, November 3, 2008
The FINAL count....One day to go!
As we have analyzed each state over the course of the past few months, our class calls the race for Obama-Biden with 321 electoral votes to McCain-Palin's 217.
The swing states were called as follows:
Obama: Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia
McCain: Missouri, North Carolina, and Florida
Maine was called 3 electoral votes for Obama and 1 for McCain.
We will be keeping a close eye on the battleground states, especially looking at the number of voters who turn out at the polls.
The swing states were called as follows:
Obama: Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia
McCain: Missouri, North Carolina, and Florida
Maine was called 3 electoral votes for Obama and 1 for McCain.
We will be keeping a close eye on the battleground states, especially looking at the number of voters who turn out at the polls.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Continuing the attacks: Palin on Obama and Coal
While speaking in Ohio today, Palin attacked Obama for a recording by the San Francisco Chronicle in an interview with Obama in January. Palin said, “This interview was given to San Francisco folks many, many months ago. You should have known about this, so that you would have better decision-making information as you go into the voting booth.”
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Race continues to look different from 2004
Obama has purchased ad time in Arizona, John McCain's home turf. The Obama campaign has said that the ad will be positive, rather than critical of McCain, in an effort not to offend any voters in the state. In Arizona, polls show that the race has been tightening but is very unlikely to tip to Obama's favor before Election Day. So what's with the ad buy? Obama campaign manager David Plouffe says that with a Democratic governor and an increasingly influential Hispanic population, Arizona is worth a try (and after all, they can afford it).
"It's enough in the realm of possibility that we want to put a little extra effort in the end," Plouffe said. "We're just going to give it a go in the last three or four days and see how close we can get it."
It could also be meant to throw the McCain campaign further off course in the last days of the election - McCain was seemingly prompted to appear in Arizona after Obama made the buy.
The Obama campaign is also venturing into Georgia and aiming for a possible victory based on the support from the youth and from black voters. Obama is also working hard for support in Colorado, Nevada, and Missouri, all of which Bush won comfortably in 2004. Ultimately, this is shaping up to be an election very unlike the last two. States that were once assumed to be easy grabs for McCain, red states that Bush won in 2000 and 2004, have become very uncertain for the Republican candidate. On the other end, McCain is making inroads in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire, two states which voted Democratic in 2004.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Where will the candidates be for the final days?
MSNBC's First Read tracks the campaign trail for the final days...
Saturday, November 1st
Obama: Nevada, Colorado, and Missouri
McCain: Virginia and Pennsylvania
Sunday, November 2nd
Obama: Ohio
McCain: New Hampshire
Monday, November 3rd:
Obama: Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia
McCain: 6 states including Nevada and Arizona
Saturday, November 1st
Obama: Nevada, Colorado, and Missouri
McCain: Virginia and Pennsylvania
Sunday, November 2nd
Obama: Ohio
McCain: New Hampshire
Monday, November 3rd:
Obama: Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia
McCain: 6 states including Nevada and Arizona
Obama's infomercial: A good call?
MSNBC's First Thoughts took a look at whether the campaigns money was well spent on Obama's 30 minute advertisement. They reported that almost 34 million people watched the ad. To put that in perspective, the NY Times reported Obama's 34 million viewers is more than the number of Americans that watched the World Series game that followed it, and also the finale of last season's American Idol. To break it down by networks that people tuned into for watching the ad: NBC had about 10 million, CBS had 8.6 million viewers, and FOX had 1 million viewers. From the numbers, it looks as though the Obama camp made a good decision on the ad buy.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
McCain comments on Obama's 30 minute ad
King: Sen. Obama had a 30-minute ad buy tonight. It ran right before we went on the air. Does that make it hard for you, the amount of money being spent against you?
McCain: Frankly, what's disturbing about it is that he signed a piece of paper back when he was a long shot candidate. And he signed it, said I won't -- I will take public financing for the presidential campaign if John McCain will. I mean, it's a living document.
He didn't tell the American people the truth. And then twice he looked into the camera when he was in debate with Sen. Clinton and said, "I'll sit down and negotiate with John McCain before I decide on public financing."
Well, he didn't tell the American people the truth. He never had any -- I'm still waiting for the call.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Not a traditional Halloween display
Over the past few days, with only a week left in the campaign, there has been an assassination plot revealed for Obama and now a controversial McCain/Palin Halloween display. These obviously offensive, scary, and hateful displays and plots are concrete examples of just how deep this election has gone. Monday, October 27, 2008
Assassination plot broken up
What effect will the assassination plot on Obama have on the election next week?
Budget matters
I was not a huge fan of so much being made of Governor Palin's wardrobe, but last night I came to a realization that made it a little more relevant.
Palin's wardrobe cost about $150,000, and she has been campaigning for about two months, let's say 60 days. 150,000 divided by 60 is $2,500--her daily wardrobe budget.
Divide that by 24 and that's $104.17--Sarah Palin's hourly wardrobe budget.
The clothes will be donated according to the campaign, but when some charities can feed people thanksgiving dinners for less than $2 and others can feed dozens of starving people in Africa for 20 bucks, I have trouble with that justification.
I wish we could focus on the issues, but with the economy as the main topic this fall, maybe this is an issue to consider.
Palin's wardrobe cost about $150,000, and she has been campaigning for about two months, let's say 60 days. 150,000 divided by 60 is $2,500--her daily wardrobe budget.
Divide that by 24 and that's $104.17--Sarah Palin's hourly wardrobe budget.
The clothes will be donated according to the campaign, but when some charities can feed people thanksgiving dinners for less than $2 and others can feed dozens of starving people in Africa for 20 bucks, I have trouble with that justification.
I wish we could focus on the issues, but with the economy as the main topic this fall, maybe this is an issue to consider.
Major Endorsements from Major Newspapers are Filtering In
As the race winds down to the last 8 days, major newspapers across the U.S. are making known who they support for the presidency. Barack Obama leads the endorsement race with 170 endorsements to John McCain's tally of 69.
"Not included in the tally below are Friday's major endorsements for Obama from the Hartford Courant and St. Petersburg Times, and his Saturday or Sunday nods from the Providence Journal, Anchorage Daily News, Des Moines Register, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Times-Picayune of New Orleans, Newark's Star-Ledger and Bergen Record in New Jersey, Baltimore Sun, Rochester Democrat & Chronicle, Albany Times-Union and others. McCain picked up the Cincinnati Enquirer and Arizona Republic on Saturday, and smaller papers."
There have been 38 papers that have switched to Obama from Bush in 2004 and only four flipping to McCain. Here are the latest endorsements by state.
(B) = Bush; (K) = Kerry; (N) = No Endorsement
BARACK OBAMA
134 daily newspapers total (not updated this weekend)
More than 15 million daily circulation total
ALABAMA (1)
Tuscaloosa News (K): 32,768
CALIFORNIA (26)
The Argus (Fremont) (K): 26,749
Contra Costa Times (Walnut Creek) (K): 183,086
Daily Breeze (Torrance) (B): 66,599
Daily News (Los Angeles) (K): 137,344
Daily Review (Hayward) (K): 30,704
The Fresno Bee (K): 150,334
Inland Valley Daily Bulletin (Ontario) (B): 53,903
La Opinion (Los Angeles) (K): 114,892
Long Beach Press Telegram (B): 85,595
Los Angeles Times (N): 773,884
Marin Independent-Journal (K): 31,909
Merced Sun Star (K): 15,015
The Modesto Bee (K): 78,001
The Monterey County Herald (K): 28,933
Oakland Tribune (K): 96,535
Pasadena Star-News (B): 27,894
San Gabriel Valley Tribune (B): 40,051
San Mateo Daily Journal: 14,800
The (Stockton) Record (B): 57,486
The Sacramento Bee (K): 288,755
San Bernardino Sun (B): 54,315
San Francisco Chronicle (K): 370,345
San Jose Mercury News (K): 234,772
San Mateo County Times (K): 25,982
Santa Cruz Sentinel (K): 23,290
Tri-Valley Herald (B): 29,759
COLORADO (9)
Aspen Daily News (K): 12,500
The Aurora Sentinel (K): 46,000
Boulder Camera (K): 28,994
Cortez Journal (K): 6,700
The Denver Post (B): 225,193
The Durango Herald (K): 8,870
Gunnison Country Times (N): 4,000
Ouray County Plaindealer (K): 3,000
>>> Vail Daily: 10,525
CONNECTICUT (1)
New Haven Register (B): 72,613
DELAWARE (1)
>>>The News Journal (Wilmington) (K): 110,171
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (1)
The Washington Post (K): 673,180
FLORIDA (6)
Daytona Beach News-Journal (K): 99,627
Miami Herald (K): 240,223
Naples Daily-News (B): 66,272
Orlando Sentinel (K): 227,593
The Palm Beach Post (K): 164,474
Sarasota Herald-Tribune (K): 114,904
GEORGIA (1)
Atlanta Journal-Constitution (K): 326,907
HAWAII (1)
Honolulu Star-Bulletin (K): 64,305
IDAHO (1)
Idaho Statesman (K): 61,927
ILLINOIS (6)
Chicago Tribune (B): 541,663
Chicago Sun-Times (K): 312,274
Daily Herald (Arlington) (K): 143,152
>>> Lake County News-Sun (Waukegan) (B): 16,899
Rockford Register Star (K): 55,913
Southwest News-Herald (K): 9,300
INDIANA (2)
The Journal Gazette (Fort Wayne) (K): 64,304
Palladium-Item (Richmond) (B): 15,453
IOWA (3)
The Hawk Eye (Burlington) (K): 18,921
Mason City Globe Gazette (B): 17,666
The Storm Lake Times (K): 3,200
KENTUCKY (2)
>>> The Ledger Independent (Maysville)
Lexington Herald-Leader (K):109,624
MAINE (2)
Bangor Daily News (K): 55,627
Brunswick Times-Record (K): 9,317
MASSACHUSETTS (3)
The Boston Globe (K): 350,605
North Adams Transcript: 5,949
The Standard-Times (New Bedford) (K): 30,306
MICHIGAN (3)
Detroit Free Press (K): 308,944
Michigan Chronicle (Detroit) (N): 31,872
The Muskegon Chronicle (K): 41,114
MINNESOTA (1)
St. Cloud Times (K): 25,868
MISSOURI (3)
Columbia Daily Tribune (K): 18,131
The Kansas City Star (K): 252,785
St. Louis Post-Dispatch (K): 255,057
NEVADA (1)
Las Vegas Sun (K): 174,341
NEW HAMPSHIRE (2)
Concord Monitor (K): 19,885
Nashua Telegraph (K): 24,272
NEW JERSEY (1)
Asbury Park Press (Neptune) (B): 140,882
NEW MEXICO (2)
Las Cruces Sun-News (B): 21,341
Santa Fe New Mexican (K): 25,249
NEW YORK (4)
Buffalo News (K): 178,365
Daily News (B): 703,137
The Daily Star (Oneonta) (K): 14,391
el Diario (K): 53,856
The New York Times (K)
NORTH CAROLINA (5)
Asheville Citizen-Times (K): 50,160
The Daily Reflector (Greenville) (K): 21,703
Durham Herald-Sun (N): 32,845
News & Observer (Raleigh) (K): 176,083
Wilmington Star-News (K): 47,620
OHIO (9)
Akron Beacon-Journal (K): 119,929
The Blade (Toledo) (K): 119,901
Dayton Daily News (K): 116,690
Hamilton Journal-News (B): 19,432
Middletown Journal: 17,285
The Repository (Canton) (B): 65,789
The Times-Reporter (New Philadelphia) (B): 22,428
Springfield News-Sun (K): 24,684
The Plain Dealer (Cleveland) (N): 330,280
OKLAHOMA
Muskogee Phoenix (K)
OREGON (7)
>>> Corvallis Gazette-Times: 12,092
The Daily Astorian (Astoria) (K): 8,263
Mail Tribune (Medford) (K): 30,349
The Oregonian (Portland) (K): 304,399
Register-Guard (Eugene) (K): 67,400
Statesman-Journal (Salem) (K): 47,152
Yamhill Valley News-Register (McMinnville) (B): 10,921
PENNSYLVANIA (5)
The Daily Item (Sunbury) (N): 24,879
The Express-Times (Easton) (B): 44,561
>>>Philadelphia Daily News (K)
Philadelphia Inquirer (K): 334,150
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (K): 214,374
TENNESSEE (3)
Chattanooga Times (K): 71,716
The Commercial Appeal (Memphis) (K): 146,961
The (Nashville) Tennessean (K): 161,131
TEXAS (5)
Austin American-Statesman (B): 170,309
The Eagle (Bryan-College Station): 21,654
Houston Chronicle (B): 494,131
Longview News-Journal (K): 27,590
The Lufkin Daily News (K): 12,225
UTAH (1)
The Salt Lake Tribune (B): 121,699
VERMONT (1)
Burlington Free Press (K): 41,901
VIRGINIA (1)
Falls Church News-Press (K): 30,500
WASHINGTON (8)
The Columbian (B): 44,623
The News Tribune (Tacoma) (K): 111,778
The Olympian (Olympia) (K): 30,755
Seattle Post-Intelligencer (K): 129,563
The Seattle Times (K): 220,883
Tri-City Herald (K): 40,830
Walla Walla Union-Bulletin (K): 13,624
Yakima Herald-Republic (B): 38,077
WEST VIRGINIA (2)
The Charleston Gazette (K): 48,061
Huntington Herald-Dispatch (K): 27,463
WISCONSIN (3)
The Capital Times (Madison) (K): 16,335
>>> Stevens Point Journal
Wisconsin State Journal (Madison) (B): 87,930
JOHN McCAIN
52 daily newspapers total
More than 4,139,700 daily circulation total
CALIFORNIA (5)
Bakersfield Californian (B) 59,433
Napa Valley Register (B): 16,283
Riverside Press-Enterprise (B): 164,189
The San Francisco Examiner (B): 80,000
San Diego Union-Tribune (B): 288,669
COLORADO (4)
Mountain Valley News (Cedaredge): 2,000
The Daily Sentinel (Grand Junction) (B): 31,349
The Pueblo Chieftain (B): 49,169
Daily Times-Call (Longmont) (B): 21,127
CONNECTICUT (1)
The Register Citizen (Torrington) (B): 8,217
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (1)
The Washington DC Examiner (N): 100,073
FLORIDA (4)
Bradenton Herald (K): 48,618
Cape Coral Daily Breeze: 2,015
Palatka Daily News: 11,000
Tampa Tribune: 220,522
IOWA (1)
The Messenger (Fort Dodge) (B): 16,355
MARYLAND (1)
The Baltimore Examiner (N): 50,000
MASSACHUSETTS (2)
Boston Herald (B): 182,350
The (Lowell) Sun (B): 44,439
MICHIGAN (1)
The Detroit News: 188,171
MINNESOTA (1)
The Journal (New Ulm) (B): 7,920
NEBRASKA (1)
>>> McCook Daily Gazette: 5,903
NEW HAMPSHIRE (2)
Foster’s Daily Democrat (B): 22,547
Union Leader (Manchester) (B): 51,782
NEW MEXICO (1)
Roswell Daily Record: 11,700
NEVADA (1)
Las Vegas Review-Journal (B): 174,341
NEW YORK (1)
New York Post (B): 702,488
NORTH DAKOTA (1)
Fargo Forum (B): 48,303
OHIO (2)
Columbus Dispatch (B): 199,524
The (Findlay) Courier (B): 22,319
OKLAHOMA (1)
Bartlesville Examiner-Enterprise: 18,400
OREGON (1)
Bend Bulletin (B): 32,455
PENNSYLVANIA (2)
Public Opinion (Chambersburg) (N): 16,679
The Sentinel (Lewistown) (B): 11,863
SOUTH CAROLINA (1)
>>> The State (Columbia) (B)
TENNESSEE (3)
The Chattanooga Free Press (B): 71,716
The Jackson Sun (K): 32,121
The Leaf-Chronicle (Clarksville) (B): 20,354
TEXAS (9)
Amarillo Globe-News (B): 44,764
Beaumont Enterprise (B): 45,684
Corpus Christi Caller-Times (K): 53,368
Dallas Morning News (B): 368,313
>>> Kerrville Daily Times: 8,971
The Lubbock Avalanche-Journal (B): 49,094
San Antonio Express-News (B): 225,447
Times Record News (Wichita Falls) (N): 28,888
Tyler Morning Telegraph: 35,598
VIRGINIA (3)
The Daily News Record (Harrisonburg): 30,908
Daily Press (Newport News) (K): 91,508
The Winchester Star (B): 20,218
WASHINGTON (1)
(Spokane) Spokesman-Review (B): 89,779
WEST VIRGINIA (1)
Wheeling News-Register (B): 12,821
WEEKLIES / COLLEGE
OBAMA (18)
Arkansas Times (Little Rock)
>>>The Bowdoin Orient (Bowdoin College)
The Chronicle (Duke University)
Cincinnati CityBeat
City Newspaper (Rochester, NY)
>>> EPG News
>>> Hoy
>>>Hunterdon Review (Clinton, NJ)
Independent Weekly (North Carolina)
>>> New York Observer
News-Register (McMinnville, OR)
>>> The Pacific Northwest Inlander (Spokane, WA)
>>> San Diego CityBeat
>>> Santa Barbara Independent (California)
Santa Monica Mirror (California)
>>>The Virginia Gazette (Williamsburg)
Windsor Beacon (Colorado)
>>> Metro Santa Cruz (California)
JOHN McCAIN (4)
The Garden City News (New York)
Lampasas Dispatch Record (Texas)
River Falls Journal (Wisconsin)
Wharton Journal-Spectator (Texas)
CHOOSING NOT TO ENDORSE (7)
>>> Abilene Reporter-News
Colorado Springs Gazette
>>> Fort Meyers News-Press
Mountain Home News (Idaho)
Springfield News-Leader
The Record Searchlight (California)
Waco Tribune Herald (Texas)
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Will Obama say anything to win?
The Associated Press reported this morning that as McCain travels on his campaign bus in Florida, he is making claims that Obama will tell the voters "anything to get elected". McCain said, "Thirteen days to go, and he changed his tax plan because the American people had learned the truth about it and they didn't like it. It's another example that he'll say anything to get elected."
With the campaign time narrowing, is this kind of talk by McCain going to make an impact on voters? According to Real Clear Politics, Obama leads McCain in Florida by only an average of 1 point. With such a close average in a key swing state, McCain may have to make bold statements like this to turn Florida red.
With the campaign time narrowing, is this kind of talk by McCain going to make an impact on voters? According to Real Clear Politics, Obama leads McCain in Florida by only an average of 1 point. With such a close average in a key swing state, McCain may have to make bold statements like this to turn Florida red.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
The Chronicles of Sarah Palin: The Elephant, The RNC, and The Wardrobe
Every website I have visited for my daily political news is reporting the RNC's shopping spree for VP nominee, Sarah Palin. I have been thinking about what this means for her as a candidate and why we should care. Three main arguments arise as to why this was not a good move by the RNC and how it goes even deeper than her wardrobe.
First of all, Sarah Palin joined the McCain ticket as someone who is not a "Washington Insider". In introducing herself to the American voters she describes herself as a hockey mom with a husband that is a member of a union, school teachers for parents, and an average PTA mom. She talks about how she drives her truck to work and does not have a cook, unlike the other governors of Alaska have. Does this new $150,000 wardrobe provided by the RNC from places like Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus stay in line with Palin's message as a candidate? I think not. Some may argue that this was needed because she is a woman, therefore requiring more than a man in the wardrobe and makeup department. However, I argue that this singles her out as a woman with varying treatment, another thing the McCain/Palin campaign has attacked people for doing.
Secondly, in the beginning of the campaign, through the conventions, and still today we have seen the media compare the wardrobes of potential First Lady's Michelle Obama and Cindy McCain. Michelle Obama has appealed to many voters for her Target shopping, as opposed to Cindy McCain's expensive taste. Cindy McCain was attacked after the RNC for her elaborate, although beautiful, Oscar de la Renta colorful suits. After seeing the scrutiny by the media of both of these women and their clothing and accessory choices, I wonder what exactly the RNC was thinking with Palin.
Another argument against the RNC's decision to spend this money is about the money and where it could best be spent. Obama's camp and the DNC have obviously trumped McCain and the RNC in advertising and GOTV efforts. The reason for this: money. While it is clear that McCain's acceptance of public funding has put him at a disadvantage in this department, the RNC spending $150,000 on Palin's wardrobe does not show that they are strategically thinking. Instead of spicing up Palin's wardrobe, that money could have been used for GOTV and gaining Republican support; something that is clearly needed in this close election.
First of all, Sarah Palin joined the McCain ticket as someone who is not a "Washington Insider". In introducing herself to the American voters she describes herself as a hockey mom with a husband that is a member of a union, school teachers for parents, and an average PTA mom. She talks about how she drives her truck to work and does not have a cook, unlike the other governors of Alaska have. Does this new $150,000 wardrobe provided by the RNC from places like Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus stay in line with Palin's message as a candidate? I think not. Some may argue that this was needed because she is a woman, therefore requiring more than a man in the wardrobe and makeup department. However, I argue that this singles her out as a woman with varying treatment, another thing the McCain/Palin campaign has attacked people for doing.
Secondly, in the beginning of the campaign, through the conventions, and still today we have seen the media compare the wardrobes of potential First Lady's Michelle Obama and Cindy McCain. Michelle Obama has appealed to many voters for her Target shopping, as opposed to Cindy McCain's expensive taste. Cindy McCain was attacked after the RNC for her elaborate, although beautiful, Oscar de la Renta colorful suits. After seeing the scrutiny by the media of both of these women and their clothing and accessory choices, I wonder what exactly the RNC was thinking with Palin.
Another argument against the RNC's decision to spend this money is about the money and where it could best be spent. Obama's camp and the DNC have obviously trumped McCain and the RNC in advertising and GOTV efforts. The reason for this: money. While it is clear that McCain's acceptance of public funding has put him at a disadvantage in this department, the RNC spending $150,000 on Palin's wardrobe does not show that they are strategically thinking. Instead of spicing up Palin's wardrobe, that money could have been used for GOTV and gaining Republican support; something that is clearly needed in this close election.
Is this Presidential Race over?
An article published online in the National Journal seems to think that the race for the Presidential Office is all but sealed up at this point in time. They point to six reasons why McCain will not succeed in his bid for the White House.
1. No candidate behind this far in the polls has surmounted a comeback, ever.
2. Early voting has brought in droves of people and "the more votes are cast early, the more voters are out of the pool for McCain."
3. The surge of Democratic party registrations in those states that require party affiliations will favor Obama.
4. Money. Obama is outspending McCain in advertising by margins of 3- and 4-1 and is gearing his dollars towards positive advertisements.
5. The "Bradley effect" hasn't happened in at least 15 years and the high voter turnout among African-Americans could offset it anyway.
6. "Obama is now leading in every state that Al Gore and John Kerry both won, including Michigan, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, and he is ahead in Iowa, New Hampshire, and New Mexico, the three states that went once but not twice for Democrats in 2000 and 2004. He is also ahead in Florida, Colorado, and Virginia. If that weren't enough (and it is), he's running basically even in Indiana, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, and Ohio, and even threatening in Montana, North Dakota and West Virginia."
The only thing that could possibly help McCain at this point in time is a deus ex machina, an unforeseen cataclysmic event that shifts the trajectory of this election. The stress of the election is showing in McCain's demeanor. McCain gave a speech in Pennsylvania in which he essentially agreed that Western Pennsylvania was racist. This of course is not the truth, but the mistake by McCain shows how tired he must be.
McCain has reportedly received an endorsement from al Qaeda. The endorsement, as the McCain camp states, is an attempt at reverse psychology, an attempt to sway voters in the U.S. to not vote for McCain. There may be a legitimate reason why al Qaeda would not want McCain in office, (his military record and accountability,) but with the data provided in the National Journal's article, it will be difficult for that to happen, with or without the endorsement.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
The "Sleeping Giant" Has Awoken
“Make no mistake about it,” Senator Barack Obama said while addressing the crowd on July 13 at the annual gathering of the National Council of La Raza, an organization aimed at promoting the rights of the Spanish-speaking American population, according to the Globe and Mail, a Canadian Newspaper. “The Latino community holds this election in your hands.”
The Senator from Illinois was equally insistent on the potential for representation the Hispanic population in the United States holds in the 2008 Presidential election when speaking to a mostly Latino crowd of around 10,000 gatherers in the New Mexican town of Espanola on September 19, according to an article in London’s The Guardian, saying, “I want you to start voting your numbers. Start flexing your muscles.”
Senator Obama appears to be putting his money where his mouth is, spending more than $20 million campaign dollars on outreach to the Latino population nationwide, and with good reason according to recent statistics. The United States now bosts the second largest Hispanic population of any country in the world, trailing only Mexico. According to a study conducted by the Pew Hispanic Center in December of 2007, about 45.5 million Latinos live in the United States. One in eight people in this country comes from a Hispanic background. Last year, salsa outsold ketchup in US grocery stores as measured by revenues. The Hispanic population and their influence on American culture in general has undeniably become increasingly pronounced.
The implications for this in terms of voter constituency are rather complicated, however. Only 34 of the some 45 million Latinos estimated to be living in the US are doing so legally, and the Hispanic population is significantly younger than the national average, resulting in a dwindled voter pool accounting for only about 6 or 7 percent of the total vote in the November election.
“But despite these modest numbers, Hispanics loom as a potential ‘swing vote’ in next years’ presidential race…because they are strategically located on the 2008 Electoral College map,” concludes the December 2007 Pew Center report.
The numbers support this finding. In the “swing states” of New Mexico, Florida, Nevada, and Colorado, Latinos constitute a much larger percentage of the eligible electorate than they do nationally (37 percent, 14 percent, 12 percent and 12 percent, respectively.) These states represent a cumulative 46 electoral votes up for grabs, demonstrating the growing importance of the Latino vote in the election as a whole.
Senator Obama is not the only presidential candidate attempting to reach out to the Hispanic community. Republicans and Democrats alike appear to have recognized that the voting demographic long-referred to as “the sleeping giant” by political analysts in this country has been stirred. Though historically U.S. Hispanics have tended to side with Democrats, George W. Bush’s emphasis on conservative family values appealed to this largely religious population, aided by his attempts to reach a consensus on immigration reform, helping him garner 40 percent of the Latino vote according to exit polls in the 2004 election. Political analysts have speculated that Senator John McCain must surpass this number in the Latino population in order to win the general election. If this proves true, things aren’t looking great for the Republican party.
While both candidates appear to have pros and cons for Latinos, Hispanic registered voters supported Obama over McCain by a 66 percent to 23 percent margin in a nationwide survey conducted by the Pew center in June and July of this year. The survey found that Latino voters have moved acutely toward the Democratic camp in the past two years, reversing gains made by the GOP earlier in the decade.
Senator Obama trailed Senator Hillary Clinton 4-to-1 among Latinos nationally (68% to 17%) in the Democratic primaries as late as February, according to a poll conducted by CNN. It has been widely suggested that this may have been due to tensions felt between the Latino and African-American communities as both struggle to claw their way up from the poverty and poor living conditions affecting many minorities in this country.
A local Republican chairman in northern New Mexico was forced to resign in September after giving the following statement to a BBC reporter: “Hispanics came here as conquerors. African-Americans came here as slaves. Hispanics consider themselves above blacks. They won’t vote for a black president.”
The remark was met with general upheaval in the media and in the public in New Mexico as Hispanic leaders quickly came forward to discredit the idea. Gabriel Sanchez, a professor of political science at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, believes Hispanic voters are concerned with the same issues as all American voters, not with the racial advancement of one minority over another, according to the Guardian article.
“The million dollar question is whether it is race or the economy that is motivating Democratic Hispanics,” says Sanchez. “I would be shocked if race was the deciding factor, but you never know.”
An early June polling of 800 registered Latino voters in 21 states conducted in-part by political scientists at the University of Washington in Seattle showed Latino citizens ranking immigration- a matter uniquely tied to the Hispanic community- as the third most important issue influencing their vote in the 2008 election, trailing jobs and the economy and the war in Iraq. Graduation rates far below the national average and lack of affordable health insurance for middle and lower-class working families keep healthcare and education reform high on the priority list of issues in the Latino population.
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, the only Hispanic governor in the nation, supports Obama emphatically based on these issues, saying the Democratic candidate “has al the right positions” to appeal to the Latino community,according to a USA Today article, if he can win their trust.
Though George W. Bush did well with Latino voters in 2004, the Republican party’s perceived mishandling of immigration reform in congress left the demographic feeling as though they were criminalized for being Hispanic, resulting in 70 percent Democrat Latino vote by the 2006 midterm elections, according to the Pew Report.
While Republican presidential nominee Senator John McCain once enjoyed renown in the Latin American community as a strong advocate of immigration reform, his back-tracking on the issue during his campaign to appease his conservative base has alienated many Hispanics-a demographic the Senator can’t afford to let slip any further.
“There’s been a real rebellion against the Republican party (on the issue of immigration)…They’ve been vilified in the media for three years and they don’t like it. McCain abdicated his position so instead of being seen as a champion, he’s a betrayer. It’s been a sea change,” according to Simon Rosenberg, director of NDN, a liberal think that focuses on Latino issues, in the Guardian article.
Ana Navarro, McCain's adviser on Hispanic affairs, concedes that the party’s support diminished among new Hispanic citizens because of some Republican lawmakers' remarks during the recent congressional debate over proposed immigration reforms, but says the McCain campaign is using Spanish-language ads to convince Hispanics that he has and will continue to fight for their cause.
Senator McCain has also recently endorsed a series of political ads, according to the Washington Times, that will run in areas with concentrated Latino populations vilifying Sen. Obama by linking him to anti-American tirades by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. While the effect these scare-tactics will have on the Hispanic voting population is yet unknown, it seems safe to conclude that Senator McCain will have to do more to win the confidence of the Latino community than airing ads in Spanish criticizing his opponent if he hopes to emerge from November 4 as the President of the United States.
The Senator from Illinois was equally insistent on the potential for representation the Hispanic population in the United States holds in the 2008 Presidential election when speaking to a mostly Latino crowd of around 10,000 gatherers in the New Mexican town of Espanola on September 19, according to an article in London’s The Guardian, saying, “I want you to start voting your numbers. Start flexing your muscles.”
Senator Obama appears to be putting his money where his mouth is, spending more than $20 million campaign dollars on outreach to the Latino population nationwide, and with good reason according to recent statistics. The United States now bosts the second largest Hispanic population of any country in the world, trailing only Mexico. According to a study conducted by the Pew Hispanic Center in December of 2007, about 45.5 million Latinos live in the United States. One in eight people in this country comes from a Hispanic background. Last year, salsa outsold ketchup in US grocery stores as measured by revenues. The Hispanic population and their influence on American culture in general has undeniably become increasingly pronounced.
The implications for this in terms of voter constituency are rather complicated, however. Only 34 of the some 45 million Latinos estimated to be living in the US are doing so legally, and the Hispanic population is significantly younger than the national average, resulting in a dwindled voter pool accounting for only about 6 or 7 percent of the total vote in the November election.
“But despite these modest numbers, Hispanics loom as a potential ‘swing vote’ in next years’ presidential race…because they are strategically located on the 2008 Electoral College map,” concludes the December 2007 Pew Center report.
The numbers support this finding. In the “swing states” of New Mexico, Florida, Nevada, and Colorado, Latinos constitute a much larger percentage of the eligible electorate than they do nationally (37 percent, 14 percent, 12 percent and 12 percent, respectively.) These states represent a cumulative 46 electoral votes up for grabs, demonstrating the growing importance of the Latino vote in the election as a whole.
Senator Obama is not the only presidential candidate attempting to reach out to the Hispanic community. Republicans and Democrats alike appear to have recognized that the voting demographic long-referred to as “the sleeping giant” by political analysts in this country has been stirred. Though historically U.S. Hispanics have tended to side with Democrats, George W. Bush’s emphasis on conservative family values appealed to this largely religious population, aided by his attempts to reach a consensus on immigration reform, helping him garner 40 percent of the Latino vote according to exit polls in the 2004 election. Political analysts have speculated that Senator John McCain must surpass this number in the Latino population in order to win the general election. If this proves true, things aren’t looking great for the Republican party.
While both candidates appear to have pros and cons for Latinos, Hispanic registered voters supported Obama over McCain by a 66 percent to 23 percent margin in a nationwide survey conducted by the Pew center in June and July of this year. The survey found that Latino voters have moved acutely toward the Democratic camp in the past two years, reversing gains made by the GOP earlier in the decade.
Senator Obama trailed Senator Hillary Clinton 4-to-1 among Latinos nationally (68% to 17%) in the Democratic primaries as late as February, according to a poll conducted by CNN. It has been widely suggested that this may have been due to tensions felt between the Latino and African-American communities as both struggle to claw their way up from the poverty and poor living conditions affecting many minorities in this country.
A local Republican chairman in northern New Mexico was forced to resign in September after giving the following statement to a BBC reporter: “Hispanics came here as conquerors. African-Americans came here as slaves. Hispanics consider themselves above blacks. They won’t vote for a black president.”
The remark was met with general upheaval in the media and in the public in New Mexico as Hispanic leaders quickly came forward to discredit the idea. Gabriel Sanchez, a professor of political science at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, believes Hispanic voters are concerned with the same issues as all American voters, not with the racial advancement of one minority over another, according to the Guardian article.
“The million dollar question is whether it is race or the economy that is motivating Democratic Hispanics,” says Sanchez. “I would be shocked if race was the deciding factor, but you never know.”
An early June polling of 800 registered Latino voters in 21 states conducted in-part by political scientists at the University of Washington in Seattle showed Latino citizens ranking immigration- a matter uniquely tied to the Hispanic community- as the third most important issue influencing their vote in the 2008 election, trailing jobs and the economy and the war in Iraq. Graduation rates far below the national average and lack of affordable health insurance for middle and lower-class working families keep healthcare and education reform high on the priority list of issues in the Latino population.
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, the only Hispanic governor in the nation, supports Obama emphatically based on these issues, saying the Democratic candidate “has al the right positions” to appeal to the Latino community,according to a USA Today article, if he can win their trust.
Though George W. Bush did well with Latino voters in 2004, the Republican party’s perceived mishandling of immigration reform in congress left the demographic feeling as though they were criminalized for being Hispanic, resulting in 70 percent Democrat Latino vote by the 2006 midterm elections, according to the Pew Report.
While Republican presidential nominee Senator John McCain once enjoyed renown in the Latin American community as a strong advocate of immigration reform, his back-tracking on the issue during his campaign to appease his conservative base has alienated many Hispanics-a demographic the Senator can’t afford to let slip any further.
“There’s been a real rebellion against the Republican party (on the issue of immigration)…They’ve been vilified in the media for three years and they don’t like it. McCain abdicated his position so instead of being seen as a champion, he’s a betrayer. It’s been a sea change,” according to Simon Rosenberg, director of NDN, a liberal think that focuses on Latino issues, in the Guardian article.
Ana Navarro, McCain's adviser on Hispanic affairs, concedes that the party’s support diminished among new Hispanic citizens because of some Republican lawmakers' remarks during the recent congressional debate over proposed immigration reforms, but says the McCain campaign is using Spanish-language ads to convince Hispanics that he has and will continue to fight for their cause.
Senator McCain has also recently endorsed a series of political ads, according to the Washington Times, that will run in areas with concentrated Latino populations vilifying Sen. Obama by linking him to anti-American tirades by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. While the effect these scare-tactics will have on the Hispanic voting population is yet unknown, it seems safe to conclude that Senator McCain will have to do more to win the confidence of the Latino community than airing ads in Spanish criticizing his opponent if he hopes to emerge from November 4 as the President of the United States.
Swing counties in swing states
We often talk of the swing states, but the key to those states also have swing counties that should be closely looked at. Today Politico released polls in two swing counties in North Carolina and Nevada. According to these new polls, Obama has taken the lead in Wake County, North Carolina and Washoe County, Nevada. These are large gains for Obama due to the fact that they were counties won by President Bush in both previous elections. Politico highlighted that these two counties are suburban and exurban areas of the states, which Obama is doing very well in. These polls also showed that "Obama posts wide leads among female voters and independents, and holds even with McCain among male voters."
Where are they today?
MSNBC's Political Calendar shows where the candidates are out on the campaign trail today, October 21st:
John McCain: Holds rallies in Bensalem, Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, Pa.
Barack Obama: Hosts a jobs summit in Lake Worth and a rally in Miami, Fla.
Sarah Palin: Holds rallies in Reno and Henderson, Nev.
Joe Biden: Holds a rally in Greeley and a community gathering in Commerce City, Co.
Michelle Obama: Holds a rally in Pensacola, Fla.
John McCain: Holds rallies in Bensalem, Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, Pa.
Barack Obama: Hosts a jobs summit in Lake Worth and a rally in Miami, Fla.
Sarah Palin: Holds rallies in Reno and Henderson, Nev.
Joe Biden: Holds a rally in Greeley and a community gathering in Commerce City, Co.
Michelle Obama: Holds a rally in Pensacola, Fla.
The double O's: Obama and Oprah
At the beginning of Obama's emergence in the presidential race, Oprah Winfrey vocalized her support for him. As we have learned with Oprah's endorsements or disapproval of various things throughout her career, Oprah really can make or break a product, book, food, and possibly even the next person in the White House. Today Drudge reported that Oprah has offered to help Obama with his half-hour advertisements that will begin on October 29th. According to Drudge, she has even offered her Chicago studio to Obama. It is unsure of the Obama campaigns response to her offers, but regardless Oprah's extremely vocal endorsement of him will be sure to make an impact on voters.
Do No Harm
We’ve had the plumber, the six-pack and Biden. Joe is the buzzword in this election. Traditionally, the role of the Vice President is to "do no harm." Critics praised Gov. Palin and Sen. Biden for doing just that earlier in this month's VP Debate. But Joe, Joe, Joe…
When speaking at an event in Seattle Sunday evening, the Senator who is known for his loose lips reached new heights on the gaffs. He said, “Mark my words… It will not be six months before the world test Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy.” He goes on to say, “Watch we are going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy… and he’s going to need help… to stand with him.”
Then comments took a bizarre turn. “Senator Obama won’t have the right response, and we know that because we’ve seen the wrong response from him over and over again during this campaign.”
Obama’s campaign spokesman used his favorite tactic to change the topic, “erratic and ideological Bush-McCain.” If I were him I would work with good old Joe to avoid situations like this.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Why are YOU reading this blog?
Senator Barack Obama sends supporters a text message announcing Joe Biden as his Vice Presidential running mate. Senator Hillary Clinton holds live online web-chats with her voting public. 62-year-old Democratic Senator from Connecticut Chris Dodd asks visitors to his website to suggest their own play-lists, which he will then add to his “Dodd-Pod” and use as a soundtrack during television interviews. Clearly, politicians have a grasp on the importance of using so-called “new media” to their advantage during the campaign season. Hence the growing importance of candidate favorability among those blade-tongued renegades: that group known as the bloggers.
A new website that tracks the U.S. political climate in the online blogging world has found that candidate’s official websites have little to no impact on voters because of their perceived lack of credibility. Presidentialwatch08.com compares mainstream media coverage of the 2008 election with 300 of the most influential conservative and liberal online blogs, demonstrating linkages as well as discrepancies. The offshoot of this is that the website, created by Linkfluence, the U.S. affiliate of the French social media company RTGI, is able to measure how accurately the candidate’s messages are being portrayed or distorted as they filter through the world wide web.
When the candidates campaign in real life, they go to rallies and schools where people are," said Anthony Hamelle, vice president of RTGI, in a January 2008 article from adweek.com. "But on the Internet, they wait for people to come to them and that doesn't work. Online, you have to go where people are and you have to meet people."
Mitch Stoller, a partner at Group SJR, a New York-based strategy firm that has joined with Linkfluence to provide consulting services to marketers, political campaigns, and advocacy groups, feels the problem lies in the way campaigns market their message as if its something to be sold rather than an idea to be believed.
"There is nothing more important in the blogosphere than the authenticity of content and whether it is interesting," Stoller said in the AdWeek article. "The candidates' Web sites seem to be driven by an advertising message. But that doesn't work in the blogosphere, which requires a more idiosyncratic voice. The candidates have not tapped in to this."
The site works by locating the "virtual town halls, schools, homes and churches of the Internet where people meet, debate and influence one another."
The question for campaigns now seems whether or not the idea that these forms of new media are as influential as the good ol' American staple-TV.
"The jury is still out on whether the blogs can compete with the credibility, accountability and longevity of television over the last four decades," David Mercer, a Democratic political strategist who has worked on five presidential elections including the 2004 John Kerry and the 2000 Al Gore campaigns, told AdWeek. "Because we are entering this new age of the Internet, it is still a monitoring exercise. And because of the quick pace of the campaigns, there has yet to be a true harnessing of the Internet."
Marketing analyst Seth Godin is also quoted in the AdWeek article, making the case as to why politician's websites are inherently flawed. "It is very easy for a candidate to spend a lot of time and money tweaking their Web sites, but that doesn't make it a vibrant part of the political conversation," Godin said. "The paradox is that what it takes to succeed in the conversation online are things that often get in the way of getting the majority of American citizens to vote for you. You need transparency, controversy and candor, which are things the presidential candidates are taught to avoid."
Political Strategist Mike Connell, whose clients include John McCain for President and the Republican National Committee, told the AdWeek reporter that while he thinks tracking blog linkages may provide some useful information, a presidential campaign may not always want to reveal to what extent it is directly responsible for messages appearing in the blogosphere .
"Sometimes people have a habit of thinking of a blog like a megaphone and that is how you contribute to the conversation," Connell says. "But that is not always how it is done; Having your message percolate up from the grassroots through the blogs has emerged as an effective strategy as well."
Campaigns are not always the best source of information, Connell said. "Many times a message will have more credibility coming from a third party, so a campaign doesn't always want to be the source of the information," he says. "There is a certain merit in independent sources. Sometimes you just want a positive message attributed to a third party because it has more credibility that way. We are talking about more than simply planting rumors and other dark arts here."
The true worth of Presidentialwatch08.com may prove its ultimate use as singling out and communicating with influential opinion leaders.
"This is the kind of thing that helps you scale your outreach efforts," said Peter Kim, a senior analyst at Forrester Research. "Consumers say they look to the recommendations of friends and family when making a purchasing decision. We see consumers looking online for peer recommendations on message boards and in chat rooms. I would say the same information applies to elections."
Though blogs have become a solid fixture in modern political communication, less is known about their readers and the way information portrayed on blogs affects their opinions. In the fall of 2006, political scientists representing about 30 universities conducted a survey of 16,000 Americans called the Cooperative Congressional Election Study. The following statistics were taken from an LA Times article by two political scientists who helped to conduct the study.
The survey asked whether or not participants read blogs, and if they did, which ones. About 34 percent of the respondents said they read blogs, but a mere 14 percent named at least one blog with a political focus.
Compared with those participants who didn't read political blogs, they are more likely to have a college degree and are more interested in politics. They are more likely to identify themselves as Democrats or Republicans, rather than as independents, and are more likely to call themselves liberals or conservatives rather than moderates. Political blog readers are more likely to vote, give money to candidates or simply talk about politics. They genuinely enjoy politics and engaging in political discussion.
As far as race, gender, and socioeconomic status goes, no significant statistic separates blog readers from the general population. This passion for politics seems to be the true distinguishing factor of those who read online political blogs and those who don’t.
Blog readers tend to visit websites that advocate their particular viewpoint. The study found that 94 percent of blog readers choose to read postings on only one side of the political spectrum, with 90 percent of both liberals and conservatives visiting blogs geared toward their affiliation. Even among those who identified as “moderates,” 89 percent read exclusively left or right wing blogs.
To determine the extent of polarization among blog readers, the study constructed a gauge of political ideology based on responses to their feelings on the topics of stem cell research, abortion, the Iraq war, the minimum wage and capital gains tax cuts. Researchers then mapped the responses, finding liberal blog readers clustered on the extreme left, while conservative blog readers seemed bunch in the far right, with little if any overlap on the issues. The differences ideologically between liberal versus conservative blog readers were far more extreme than those between liberals who watch CNN and conservatives who watch Fox News, according to those professors who wrote the LA Times article.
The study appears to conclude that while political blogs have become an important part of modern communication between citizens, they lack the potential to dramatically affect the voting public because in most instances bloggers are preaching to their own choir. Those who read blogs are already likely very involved and up-to-date on their political information, and are likely seeking out only those websites that bolster or legitimize their existing viewpoint. The main way blogs can affect voters is by uncovering new information, which will then disperse through the public and the less-partisan mainstream media (as was the case when the Huffington Post, a left-wing political blog, broke the story about Senator Obama’s comment pertaining to small-town people clinging to “guns and religion.”)
As far as politics in general, the effect of blogs may be less geared toward persuasion and more toward mobilization, the study finds. Bloggers may inspire their readers to become active in supporting candidates in their communities, to donate money to a campaign, or to get their friends and family members to register to vote. Those who read blogs appear to be active in promoting causes, candidates, or issues within their society. Only time will tell how new technologies spawned of the information age will continue to alter the terms of communication between the government and the governed.
A new website that tracks the U.S. political climate in the online blogging world has found that candidate’s official websites have little to no impact on voters because of their perceived lack of credibility. Presidentialwatch08.com compares mainstream media coverage of the 2008 election with 300 of the most influential conservative and liberal online blogs, demonstrating linkages as well as discrepancies. The offshoot of this is that the website, created by Linkfluence, the U.S. affiliate of the French social media company RTGI, is able to measure how accurately the candidate’s messages are being portrayed or distorted as they filter through the world wide web.
When the candidates campaign in real life, they go to rallies and schools where people are," said Anthony Hamelle, vice president of RTGI, in a January 2008 article from adweek.com. "But on the Internet, they wait for people to come to them and that doesn't work. Online, you have to go where people are and you have to meet people."
Mitch Stoller, a partner at Group SJR, a New York-based strategy firm that has joined with Linkfluence to provide consulting services to marketers, political campaigns, and advocacy groups, feels the problem lies in the way campaigns market their message as if its something to be sold rather than an idea to be believed.
"There is nothing more important in the blogosphere than the authenticity of content and whether it is interesting," Stoller said in the AdWeek article. "The candidates' Web sites seem to be driven by an advertising message. But that doesn't work in the blogosphere, which requires a more idiosyncratic voice. The candidates have not tapped in to this."
The site works by locating the "virtual town halls, schools, homes and churches of the Internet where people meet, debate and influence one another."
The question for campaigns now seems whether or not the idea that these forms of new media are as influential as the good ol' American staple-TV.
"The jury is still out on whether the blogs can compete with the credibility, accountability and longevity of television over the last four decades," David Mercer, a Democratic political strategist who has worked on five presidential elections including the 2004 John Kerry and the 2000 Al Gore campaigns, told AdWeek. "Because we are entering this new age of the Internet, it is still a monitoring exercise. And because of the quick pace of the campaigns, there has yet to be a true harnessing of the Internet."
Marketing analyst Seth Godin is also quoted in the AdWeek article, making the case as to why politician's websites are inherently flawed. "It is very easy for a candidate to spend a lot of time and money tweaking their Web sites, but that doesn't make it a vibrant part of the political conversation," Godin said. "The paradox is that what it takes to succeed in the conversation online are things that often get in the way of getting the majority of American citizens to vote for you. You need transparency, controversy and candor, which are things the presidential candidates are taught to avoid."
Political Strategist Mike Connell, whose clients include John McCain for President and the Republican National Committee, told the AdWeek reporter that while he thinks tracking blog linkages may provide some useful information, a presidential campaign may not always want to reveal to what extent it is directly responsible for messages appearing in the blogosphere .
"Sometimes people have a habit of thinking of a blog like a megaphone and that is how you contribute to the conversation," Connell says. "But that is not always how it is done; Having your message percolate up from the grassroots through the blogs has emerged as an effective strategy as well."
Campaigns are not always the best source of information, Connell said. "Many times a message will have more credibility coming from a third party, so a campaign doesn't always want to be the source of the information," he says. "There is a certain merit in independent sources. Sometimes you just want a positive message attributed to a third party because it has more credibility that way. We are talking about more than simply planting rumors and other dark arts here."
The true worth of Presidentialwatch08.com may prove its ultimate use as singling out and communicating with influential opinion leaders.
"This is the kind of thing that helps you scale your outreach efforts," said Peter Kim, a senior analyst at Forrester Research. "Consumers say they look to the recommendations of friends and family when making a purchasing decision. We see consumers looking online for peer recommendations on message boards and in chat rooms. I would say the same information applies to elections."
Though blogs have become a solid fixture in modern political communication, less is known about their readers and the way information portrayed on blogs affects their opinions. In the fall of 2006, political scientists representing about 30 universities conducted a survey of 16,000 Americans called the Cooperative Congressional Election Study. The following statistics were taken from an LA Times article by two political scientists who helped to conduct the study.
The survey asked whether or not participants read blogs, and if they did, which ones. About 34 percent of the respondents said they read blogs, but a mere 14 percent named at least one blog with a political focus.
Compared with those participants who didn't read political blogs, they are more likely to have a college degree and are more interested in politics. They are more likely to identify themselves as Democrats or Republicans, rather than as independents, and are more likely to call themselves liberals or conservatives rather than moderates. Political blog readers are more likely to vote, give money to candidates or simply talk about politics. They genuinely enjoy politics and engaging in political discussion.
As far as race, gender, and socioeconomic status goes, no significant statistic separates blog readers from the general population. This passion for politics seems to be the true distinguishing factor of those who read online political blogs and those who don’t.
Blog readers tend to visit websites that advocate their particular viewpoint. The study found that 94 percent of blog readers choose to read postings on only one side of the political spectrum, with 90 percent of both liberals and conservatives visiting blogs geared toward their affiliation. Even among those who identified as “moderates,” 89 percent read exclusively left or right wing blogs.
To determine the extent of polarization among blog readers, the study constructed a gauge of political ideology based on responses to their feelings on the topics of stem cell research, abortion, the Iraq war, the minimum wage and capital gains tax cuts. Researchers then mapped the responses, finding liberal blog readers clustered on the extreme left, while conservative blog readers seemed bunch in the far right, with little if any overlap on the issues. The differences ideologically between liberal versus conservative blog readers were far more extreme than those between liberals who watch CNN and conservatives who watch Fox News, according to those professors who wrote the LA Times article.
The study appears to conclude that while political blogs have become an important part of modern communication between citizens, they lack the potential to dramatically affect the voting public because in most instances bloggers are preaching to their own choir. Those who read blogs are already likely very involved and up-to-date on their political information, and are likely seeking out only those websites that bolster or legitimize their existing viewpoint. The main way blogs can affect voters is by uncovering new information, which will then disperse through the public and the less-partisan mainstream media (as was the case when the Huffington Post, a left-wing political blog, broke the story about Senator Obama’s comment pertaining to small-town people clinging to “guns and religion.”)
As far as politics in general, the effect of blogs may be less geared toward persuasion and more toward mobilization, the study finds. Bloggers may inspire their readers to become active in supporting candidates in their communities, to donate money to a campaign, or to get their friends and family members to register to vote. Those who read blogs appear to be active in promoting causes, candidates, or issues within their society. Only time will tell how new technologies spawned of the information age will continue to alter the terms of communication between the government and the governed.
Interactive Map
This interactive electoral map lets you explore the directions in which the election could go...click once to turn a state red and twice to turn it blue. When I played, McCain didn't take the lead until after all of the current "toss-up" states swayed his way..can he do it?
Sarah Palin "Now is not the time to experiment with socialism"
At a previous rally, Sarah Palin implied that Obama's policies were the same thing as Socialism.
Today in Colorado, Palin adresses her previous comment and says:
"Joe the plummer has been able to accmomplish is something that none of the rest of us have been able to accomplish. He got our opponent to state plainly his intentions of what he is going to do with tax increases. So if you ask me that makes Joe the winner of last weeks presidential debate. As a result of that conversation, Obama says he wants to "spread the wealth," what that means is government taking more of your money and giving it out however a politicians would seem fit... So Obama calls it spreading the wealth, Biden calls it patriotic, but Joe the Plummer said it sounded to him like socialism. And now is not the time to expierment with socialism."
She argues that Obama plans punish hardwork, and discourage productivity, and will stop the entrepaneur spirit that has made this country what it is. This plan, she argues, gives more power to the government which she insists is the problem in the first place.
Now I ask, why would we want to follow Obama's economic plans that kill the spirit of what it means to be an American, the notion of equal opportunity? Why would I want to give the money I make to the government so that they can decide what to do with it? John McCain and Sarah Palin argue against big government, they believe that this is not the solution but the problem. They think that the solution to such a problem is not taking control of your money rather they believe that the solution is less government and giving Americans the right to have control over their own profits, which in turn will secure opportunitys for every American to prosper and will help create new wealth. This idea allows citizens to be free from the chains of government and gives inspiration to individuals to want to succeed. Instead of having the government to rely on, should we not as Americans rely on the support from each other?
I know that if I work hard, and somehow manage to make $250,000 or more, I would not want the government telling me how I should spend it, who I should give it to. Taking this money away from me would make me less inclined to put money into the small buisnesses that these "tax cuts" that Obama is proposing for the middle class are meant to save. Without the circulation that is provided by the top 5% of Americans, our country is now completley dependent on money from the government. Is that how you want to live? Bush's tax cuts which McCain supports not only decreases tax's for the wealthy, but they decrease taxes for the middle and lower class as well. Obama's tax cuts simply decrease taxes for anyone making less than $250,000 a year, raising taxes on everyone else. As an American, you are given the opportunity to make $250,000 a year, and as an American you should not be penalized for taking advantage of opportunities provided to you by our country.
Today in Colorado, Palin adresses her previous comment and says:
"Joe the plummer has been able to accmomplish is something that none of the rest of us have been able to accomplish. He got our opponent to state plainly his intentions of what he is going to do with tax increases. So if you ask me that makes Joe the winner of last weeks presidential debate. As a result of that conversation, Obama says he wants to "spread the wealth," what that means is government taking more of your money and giving it out however a politicians would seem fit... So Obama calls it spreading the wealth, Biden calls it patriotic, but Joe the Plummer said it sounded to him like socialism. And now is not the time to expierment with socialism."
She argues that Obama plans punish hardwork, and discourage productivity, and will stop the entrepaneur spirit that has made this country what it is. This plan, she argues, gives more power to the government which she insists is the problem in the first place.
Now I ask, why would we want to follow Obama's economic plans that kill the spirit of what it means to be an American, the notion of equal opportunity? Why would I want to give the money I make to the government so that they can decide what to do with it? John McCain and Sarah Palin argue against big government, they believe that this is not the solution but the problem. They think that the solution to such a problem is not taking control of your money rather they believe that the solution is less government and giving Americans the right to have control over their own profits, which in turn will secure opportunitys for every American to prosper and will help create new wealth. This idea allows citizens to be free from the chains of government and gives inspiration to individuals to want to succeed. Instead of having the government to rely on, should we not as Americans rely on the support from each other?
I know that if I work hard, and somehow manage to make $250,000 or more, I would not want the government telling me how I should spend it, who I should give it to. Taking this money away from me would make me less inclined to put money into the small buisnesses that these "tax cuts" that Obama is proposing for the middle class are meant to save. Without the circulation that is provided by the top 5% of Americans, our country is now completley dependent on money from the government. Is that how you want to live? Bush's tax cuts which McCain supports not only decreases tax's for the wealthy, but they decrease taxes for the middle and lower class as well. Obama's tax cuts simply decrease taxes for anyone making less than $250,000 a year, raising taxes on everyone else. As an American, you are given the opportunity to make $250,000 a year, and as an American you should not be penalized for taking advantage of opportunities provided to you by our country.
Colin Powell supports Obama
A strong member of the Republican Party and the former secretary of state under George W. Bush says he supports Barack Obama because:
1. Colin Powell on Sarah Palin: " I do not believe Palin is ready to be the president of the United States which is the job of the vice president" - Colin Powell
If we are looking at Sarah Palin's track record she has been a mayor and a governor in Alaska, and if we are going to talk about expierence, she has more expierence dealing with Alaska than Obama has in dealing with Illinois.
Talk show radio host Reese Hopkins from "Reese on the Radio" asks in an interview with CNN "Is this Colin Powell endorsing Colin Powell?" This raises a good point, is Powell trying to secure a position in Obama's administration because he believes that Obama is going to win?
2. Colin Powell on William Ayers: "To focus on people like Mr. Ayers for the purpose of suggesting that he would have some terrorist inclinations, I thought that was over the top."
Again, Hopkins replies to Powell by saying"The association between Bill Ayers and Barack Obama is the socialist comment that you have been hearing. William Aires is associated with a movement that wants to destroy capitalism in this country, as Obama has claimed in his 'spread the wealth around' to joe the plummer."
If a person's background can keep them from being hired for a job in the federal government, then why should we even consider making an exception for a man running for president who has a history or relationship with a man who is a socialist. A common person would be questioned, so why is it a problem that we are questioning this situation for a man running to lead our country?
3. Colin Powell on Obama as a Socialist: "The message this week is that we are going to call him a socialist, Mr. Obama is now a socialist because he dares to suggest that maybye we ought to look at the tax structure that we have. Taxes are always a redistribution of money." - refferring to Obama saying it is a redistribution of money.
Hopkins states "If Barack Obama would have made a stronger claim for raising taxes on the rich had he not said he was raising taxes on the rich. There is a way of redistributing without saying that you are going to raise taxes on the rich. He blatenlty said that rich people in this country who make over 250,000 dollars should spread the wealth around. He said that the people who dont make as much money as the people who make over 230,000 dollars, that they should start earning off of what rich people make, that they should reap the benfits off of somebody elses hard work."
I agree, if Obama is going to base his economic systems on the same fundamentals that define that of a socialist, then it is fair to make the claim that he entertains the idea behind this form of government. I see no difference between Obama drawing parrallels between Bush and McCain's policies and McCain drawing parrallels between Obama and William Ayers policies. Obama suggests that we should change and venture away from the Bush administration, this may be true but is he now suggesting that we venture towards socialism? It is only fair to assume if we are going to use the same logic the Obama campaign is using for making conclusions that McCain's administration will be the same as Bush's.
1. Colin Powell on Sarah Palin: " I do not believe Palin is ready to be the president of the United States which is the job of the vice president" - Colin Powell
If we are looking at Sarah Palin's track record she has been a mayor and a governor in Alaska, and if we are going to talk about expierence, she has more expierence dealing with Alaska than Obama has in dealing with Illinois.
Talk show radio host Reese Hopkins from "Reese on the Radio" asks in an interview with CNN "Is this Colin Powell endorsing Colin Powell?" This raises a good point, is Powell trying to secure a position in Obama's administration because he believes that Obama is going to win?
2. Colin Powell on William Ayers: "To focus on people like Mr. Ayers for the purpose of suggesting that he would have some terrorist inclinations, I thought that was over the top."
Again, Hopkins replies to Powell by saying"The association between Bill Ayers and Barack Obama is the socialist comment that you have been hearing. William Aires is associated with a movement that wants to destroy capitalism in this country, as Obama has claimed in his 'spread the wealth around' to joe the plummer."
If a person's background can keep them from being hired for a job in the federal government, then why should we even consider making an exception for a man running for president who has a history or relationship with a man who is a socialist. A common person would be questioned, so why is it a problem that we are questioning this situation for a man running to lead our country?
3. Colin Powell on Obama as a Socialist: "The message this week is that we are going to call him a socialist, Mr. Obama is now a socialist because he dares to suggest that maybye we ought to look at the tax structure that we have. Taxes are always a redistribution of money." - refferring to Obama saying it is a redistribution of money.
Hopkins states "If Barack Obama would have made a stronger claim for raising taxes on the rich had he not said he was raising taxes on the rich. There is a way of redistributing without saying that you are going to raise taxes on the rich. He blatenlty said that rich people in this country who make over 250,000 dollars should spread the wealth around. He said that the people who dont make as much money as the people who make over 230,000 dollars, that they should start earning off of what rich people make, that they should reap the benfits off of somebody elses hard work."
I agree, if Obama is going to base his economic systems on the same fundamentals that define that of a socialist, then it is fair to make the claim that he entertains the idea behind this form of government. I see no difference between Obama drawing parrallels between Bush and McCain's policies and McCain drawing parrallels between Obama and William Ayers policies. Obama suggests that we should change and venture away from the Bush administration, this may be true but is he now suggesting that we venture towards socialism? It is only fair to assume if we are going to use the same logic the Obama campaign is using for making conclusions that McCain's administration will be the same as Bush's.
Tax Analogy
I got this email comparing our tax system to a bar tab and find it pretty hysterical...
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill
for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would
go something like this:
* The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
* The fifth would pay $1.
* The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings) .
* The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings) .
* The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 ( 25% savings).
* The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
* The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite
happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going
to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.'
'Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.'
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our
taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for
free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How
could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair
share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the
sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar
owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by
roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each
should pay.
And so:
* The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
* The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings) .
* The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings) .
* The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 ( 25% savings).
* The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
* The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first
four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the
men began to compare their savings.
'I only got a dollar out of the $20,' declared the sixth
man. He pointed to the tenth man, 'but he got $10!'
'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only Saved
a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'
'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get
$10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We
didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so
the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to
pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have
enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college
professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest
taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much,
attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill
for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would
go something like this:
* The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
* The fifth would pay $1.
* The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings) .
* The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings) .
* The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 ( 25% savings).
* The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
* The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite
happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going
to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.'
'Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.'
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our
taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for
free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How
could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair
share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the
sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar
owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by
roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each
should pay.
And so:
* The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
* The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings) .
* The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings) .
* The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 ( 25% savings).
* The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
* The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first
four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the
men began to compare their savings.
'I only got a dollar out of the $20,' declared the sixth
man. He pointed to the tenth man, 'but he got $10!'
'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only Saved
a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'
'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get
$10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We
didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so
the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to
pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have
enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college
professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest
taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much,
attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
Some Perspective via David Letterman
David Letterman wrote this; it's the David we don't often see...
"As most of you know I am not a President Bush fan, nor have I ever
been, but this is not about Bush, it is about us, as Americans, and
it seems to hit the mark.
'The other day I was reading Newsweek magazine and came across some
Poll data I found rather hard to believe. It must be true given the
source, right?
The Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy
with the direction the country is headed and 69 percent of the
country is unhappy with the performance of the President. In
essence 2/3 of the citizenry just ain't happy and want a change. So
being the knuckle dragger I am, I started thinking, 'What are we so
unhappy about?''
A.. Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a
day, 7 Days a week?
B.. Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the
summer and heating in the winter?
C.. Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job?
D.. Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at any
time and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last
year?
E.. Maybe it is the ability to drive our cars and trucks from the
Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present
identification papers as we move through each state?
F.. Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would find
along the way that can provide temporary shelter?
G.. I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine
from around the world is just not good enough either.
H. Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers
show up and provide services to help all and even send a helicopter
to take you to the hospital.
I.. Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home.
J.. You may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of a
fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and
use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames, thus saving you,
your family, and your belongings.
K.. Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs,
a burglar or prowler intrudes, an officer equipped with a gun and a
bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against
attack or loss.
L.. This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or
militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where
90% of teenagers own cell phones and computers.
M.. How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms
we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world?
Maybe that is what has 67% of you folks unhappy.
Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the
world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S. , yet has a
great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The
most blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about
what we don't have, and what we hate about the country instead of
thanking the good Lord we live here.
I know, I know. What about the president who took us into war and
has no plan to get us out? The president who has a measly 31
percent approval rating? Is this the same president who guided the
nation in the dark days after 9/11? The president that cut taxes to
bring an economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who
has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping
all the spoiled ungrateful brats safe from terrorist attacks? The
commander in chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there
defending you and me?
Did you hear how bad the President is on the news or talk show? Did
this news affect you so much, make you so unhappy you couldn't take
a look around for yourself and see all the good things and be glad?
Think about it......are you upset at the President because he
actually caused you personal pain OR is it because the 'Media' told
you he was failing to kiss your sorry ungrateful behind every day.
Make no mistake about it.
The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and
in many cases may have died for your freedom. There is currently no
draft in this country. They didn't have to go. They are able to
refuse to go and end up with either a ''general'' discharge, an
'other than honorable'' discharge or, worst case scenario, a
''dishonorable' ' discharge after a few days in the brig.
So why then the flat-out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent
of Americans?
Say what you want but I blame it on the media. If it bleeds it
leads and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car
crash with blood and guts How many will watch kids selling lemonade
at the corner? The media knows this and media outlets are for-
profit corporations. They offer what sells, and when criticized,
try to defend their actions by 'justifying' them in one way o r a
another Just ask why they tried to allow a murderer like O.J.
Simpson to write a book about how he didn't kill his wife, but if
he did he would have done it this way......Insane!
Turn off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the
bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have
as country. There is exponentially more good than bad. We are among
the most blessed people on Earth and should thank God several times
a day, or at least be thankful and appreciative.' 'With hurricanes,
tornados, fires out of control, mud slides, flooding, severe
thunderstorms tearing up the country from one end to another, and
with the threat of bird flu and terrorist attacks, 'Are we sure
this is a good time to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance?'
"As most of you know I am not a President Bush fan, nor have I ever
been, but this is not about Bush, it is about us, as Americans, and
it seems to hit the mark.
'The other day I was reading Newsweek magazine and came across some
Poll data I found rather hard to believe. It must be true given the
source, right?
The Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy
with the direction the country is headed and 69 percent of the
country is unhappy with the performance of the President. In
essence 2/3 of the citizenry just ain't happy and want a change. So
being the knuckle dragger I am, I started thinking, 'What are we so
unhappy about?''
A.. Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a
day, 7 Days a week?
B.. Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the
summer and heating in the winter?
C.. Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job?
D.. Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at any
time and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last
year?
E.. Maybe it is the ability to drive our cars and trucks from the
Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present
identification papers as we move through each state?
F.. Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would find
along the way that can provide temporary shelter?
G.. I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine
from around the world is just not good enough either.
H. Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers
show up and provide services to help all and even send a helicopter
to take you to the hospital.
I.. Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home.
J.. You may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of a
fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and
use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames, thus saving you,
your family, and your belongings.
K.. Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs,
a burglar or prowler intrudes, an officer equipped with a gun and a
bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against
attack or loss.
L.. This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or
militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where
90% of teenagers own cell phones and computers.
M.. How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms
we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world?
Maybe that is what has 67% of you folks unhappy.
Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the
world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S. , yet has a
great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The
most blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about
what we don't have, and what we hate about the country instead of
thanking the good Lord we live here.
I know, I know. What about the president who took us into war and
has no plan to get us out? The president who has a measly 31
percent approval rating? Is this the same president who guided the
nation in the dark days after 9/11? The president that cut taxes to
bring an economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who
has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping
all the spoiled ungrateful brats safe from terrorist attacks? The
commander in chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there
defending you and me?
Did you hear how bad the President is on the news or talk show? Did
this news affect you so much, make you so unhappy you couldn't take
a look around for yourself and see all the good things and be glad?
Think about it......are you upset at the President because he
actually caused you personal pain OR is it because the 'Media' told
you he was failing to kiss your sorry ungrateful behind every day.
Make no mistake about it.
The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and
in many cases may have died for your freedom. There is currently no
draft in this country. They didn't have to go. They are able to
refuse to go and end up with either a ''general'' discharge, an
'other than honorable'' discharge or, worst case scenario, a
''dishonorable' ' discharge after a few days in the brig.
So why then the flat-out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent
of Americans?
Say what you want but I blame it on the media. If it bleeds it
leads and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car
crash with blood and guts How many will watch kids selling lemonade
at the corner? The media knows this and media outlets are for-
profit corporations. They offer what sells, and when criticized,
try to defend their actions by 'justifying' them in one way o r a
another Just ask why they tried to allow a murderer like O.J.
Simpson to write a book about how he didn't kill his wife, but if
he did he would have done it this way......Insane!
Turn off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the
bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have
as country. There is exponentially more good than bad. We are among
the most blessed people on Earth and should thank God several times
a day, or at least be thankful and appreciative.' 'With hurricanes,
tornados, fires out of control, mud slides, flooding, severe
thunderstorms tearing up the country from one end to another, and
with the threat of bird flu and terrorist attacks, 'Are we sure
this is a good time to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance?'
Have Slogan will Smear!
In this historical race between a respected war veteran and an invigorating idealist, the strategies of both come down to the last 15 days of battle. Strategies for victory have been laid on the table and are being implemented as both candidates square off in the ultimate showdown of ultimate destiny.
This has been a campaign season of catch phrases, "lip-stick on a pig", "I can see Russia from my house", "A bridge to nowhere", "Ready to sit down at the table without preconditions", "Out of touch", and many more to boot. These catch phrases have read like advertisements on billboards branding each candidate differently. Obama has been in league with "terriers" and McCain "shouldn't smile, ever, just in general, at all."
So what do we as constituents assign values to? Do we adhere to the commentary our own personal bias? Does this sort of environment reinforce personal biases?
Personal agendas have been on display in the media, in the comic frame of ideas that give rise to perceptions that would otherwise not be had. The Family Guy recently criticized the McCain Palin ticket with this animated segment.
Communication in this regard, gives form the perceptions of candidates whether they are true or false. Sarah Palin has given voters, and celebrities, plenty to think about. Celebrities such as Chevy Chase voiced his opinions on McCain's pick of Sarah Palin for his vice presidential running mate.
Yet not all of the negativity has been directed at McCain. Obama has been given his fair share of unfavorable press as well, as is witness in the above image.
All of this has a Benny Hill feeling to it where keystone cops are replaced by rabid reporters jockeying for position, trying to catch candidates in awkward situations. Sarah Palin has "handlers" much like animal wranglers on a set trying to save Fido from an embarrassing restroom break on the set. That's not surprising concerning her recent error in terming some parts of America as not being "Pro-American." She has a sharp tongue and is getting restless from being controlled by members of her own party. When she speaks, her voice carries implications that McCain might not be so quick to affirm, or maybe her position as surrogate gives her footing McCain simply can't have. She recently criticized Obama with this remark.
“There are socialist principles to that, yes,” Ms. Palin said of his plan. “Taking more from a small business or small business owners or from a hard working family, and then redistributing that money according to a politician’s priorities. There are hints of socialism in there.”
Socialism, did you hear that?, Socialism has now entered the realm of catch phrases, the catch phrases draping off the billboards of this campaign season. With fifteen days left until the election there may be more to come. Grin and bear it America!
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Obama's Fundraising for September
Breitbart.com reported today that the Obama campaign has raised $150 million in the month of September. This number was released by the campaign before having to turn in its numbers to the FEC. While this number is quite large, it is not a surprising number to come from the Obama camp. It will be interesting to see in the next 16 days how much Obama and McCain's fundraising and advertising efforts will change the polls and early voting during this GOTV crunch time.
The bigger question that this "stunning" number sheds light on is did McCain put himself in a position to lose the election by accepting public funding? While he had to accept public funding since he is an advocate of it, will it end up being detrimental for his campaign? If both McCain and Obama had of accepted public funds, thus limiting both of their abilities to fundraise and spend, would this election be closer than it is today? Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, says that the average donation to the Obama campaign is $86. This shows that it is not a few large donors, but instead a lot of people giving smaller donations.
The God Factor
Can humans be religious without being political? Martin E. Marty, an ordained Lutheran pastor and Professor of Divinity, states that almost anything can be religious - football, beauty, making money, human rights, environmentalism. As long as the religion possesses five characteristics: Ultimate Concern, community, myth and symbol, and rites and ceremonies. It is the first characteristic, the Ultimate Concern, which concerns us here. Marty defines the Ultimate Concern as "what we live by," what gives our life meaning, what is our ultimate concern in this life. For some this includes a god or gods, for others it does not. With this definition of being religious in politics, I ask again: is it possible to be religious and not political? Can we learn to balance and separate our personal bias of religion and work with others whose ultimate concerns may not match our own?
In this upcoming election, the main concerns of the American public have surfaced to be the economy, health care and in Obama's case, faith...or rather Christian faith...or rather Muslim faith - meaning Obama's "Muslim faith."
Despite our supposed separation of church and state, Christianity is as difficult to keep out of politics as any other religion of Marty's definition.
I'd like to offer a purview of how religion has crept, nudged, and out-right plowed its way into the media agenda this cycle.
The first hints of the God Factor occur when we question a candidate's faith. More specifically, we question a candidate's Christian faith. Obama's faith has been under scrutiny from the moment the news surfaced that both his adopted and biological fathers were Muslim.
Back in September, Obama made an appearance on This Week with George Stephenapolous, in which Obama commented that McCain has not yet mentioned his "Muslim faith." Stephenapoulos corrected Obama, interjecting that he must have meant to say "Christian faith." Several right-wing media outlets took his mistake out of context. Obama was trying to explain that McCain never mentioned his "Muslim faith," meaning that McCain never accused Obama of being Muslim, but Rose Tennent of the radio show, The War Room with Quinn and Rose, accused Obama of being a Muslim, Marxist and a Black Liberation Theologist.
With all radical accusations aside, there is still genuine confusion about Obama's faith. In a rolling Hawkeye Poll 8.3 percent of people thought Obama to be Muslim, 33.4 percent could not name his religion. Surprisingly though, these numbers were about the same concerning McCain's faith.
Even though Obama's mother comes from a Christian background, and Obama has attended Trinity United Church of Christ for 20 years (Obama left the church after a well-known scandal we will discuss later). Obama set the record straight on his religion, stating that even though his fathers were Muslim and he grew up in Indonesia, a Muslim country, he still attended secular and Catholic schools and is still a dedicated Christian today.
Obama's faith has even risen from the level of rumor to that of mysterious urban legend. Several e-mails were disseminated, claiming that Barack Hussein (yes, they use his middle name in every e-mail) Obama is actually a Muslim and is lying (and always has lied) about his Christian life-style. Obama's "terrifying" faith may give new meaning to the wearing of presidential Halloween masks this year.
If Obama's Muslim affiliations through his fathers weren't enough to discredit him to some Americans, his Christians affiliations would certainly suffice.
Obama's religious affiliations were so seemingly important to the media and to the American public that when the "scandal" broke about his "radical" pastor of 20 years, Rev. Wright, Obama went so far as to quit his church. (If I can't stress his commitment to that community any further, Obama has been a member of that church for nearly half of his life). If the mix of religion and politics isn't clear enough, CNN reported that Rev. Wright believed Obama had "distanced himself...for political reasons."
To be fair and balanced, Obama also alludes to the mixing of politics and religion. After Father Pfleger, a visiting pastor, made negative remarks about Hillary Clinton, Obama stated that:
"That is why I am deeply disappointed in Father Pfleger's divisive, backward-looking rhetoric, which doesn't reflect the country I see or the desire of people across America to come together in common cause."
Obama links his religious affiliations with those of the rest of the country (The U.S. has a population of over 300 million).
The God Factor is enforced not only by the media and voters, but also by the candidates' campaigns. Last weekend, McCain made a stop in Davenport, Iowa where the opening prayer given by Rev. Arnold Conrad caused some controversy. Conrad implied the Christian god is bigger than all the others, and that He (the Christian god) must help McCain get elected to uphold His "reputation." It is very common for candidates to open rallies with a prayer, but Conrad walked a fine line of asking a divinity for support and claiming Christian supremacy. By including Conrad's prayer in his rally, McCain reinforces the importance and prevalence of the God Factor in this race. Obama's campaign rallies also include an opening prayer, however less controversial and offensive.
Coming from one of the most revered positions in Christianity, second only to Jesus Christ, Pope Benedict XVI, has even entered the political arena by encouraging Catholics to "reject pro-choice politicians."
A candidate's religious affiliation, home church and prayer life has been public knowledge in presidential elections for the past dozen or so cycles. In this election, our candidate's religion has become equivalent in importance to their economic and foreign policies. We see this because a candidate's religious views and strength of faith is actually a deciding factor for many voters. Just as voters bring gender, race and socio-economic status into the voting booth, so do they also bring religion. Each aspect of our lives is equally important in shaping our decisions.
So what happens when religion enters the decision-making process? It certainly has proven to mean greater voter turnout, as is evident in the droves of Christian Evangelicals that voted-in Bush for both elections. It could also mean something more dangerous: bigotry, ignorance and hatred. While religion can be a driving force for social justice, protection of life, peace and tolerance, it can also be a driving force for fear, which in the wise words of Yoda, leads to hate and hate leads to suffering.
It seems that keeping religion out of the voting booth is near impossible. But until we find a balance between acknowledging religion as our Ultimate Concern and using religion to hurt and oppress, I suggest we try to keep religion and politics as separate as possible.
Because the Christian religion is a dominating topic of this discussion, I would like to end with a passage from the Bible, Matthew 22: 15-22:
Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians.
"Teacher," they said, "we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"
But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax."
They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"
"Caesar's," they replied. Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."
When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.
In this upcoming election, the main concerns of the American public have surfaced to be the economy, health care and in Obama's case, faith...or rather Christian faith...or rather Muslim faith - meaning Obama's "Muslim faith."
Despite our supposed separation of church and state, Christianity is as difficult to keep out of politics as any other religion of Marty's definition.
I'd like to offer a purview of how religion has crept, nudged, and out-right plowed its way into the media agenda this cycle.
The first hints of the God Factor occur when we question a candidate's faith. More specifically, we question a candidate's Christian faith. Obama's faith has been under scrutiny from the moment the news surfaced that both his adopted and biological fathers were Muslim.
Back in September, Obama made an appearance on This Week with George Stephenapolous, in which Obama commented that McCain has not yet mentioned his "Muslim faith." Stephenapoulos corrected Obama, interjecting that he must have meant to say "Christian faith." Several right-wing media outlets took his mistake out of context. Obama was trying to explain that McCain never mentioned his "Muslim faith," meaning that McCain never accused Obama of being Muslim, but Rose Tennent of the radio show, The War Room with Quinn and Rose, accused Obama of being a Muslim, Marxist and a Black Liberation Theologist.
With all radical accusations aside, there is still genuine confusion about Obama's faith. In a rolling Hawkeye Poll 8.3 percent of people thought Obama to be Muslim, 33.4 percent could not name his religion. Surprisingly though, these numbers were about the same concerning McCain's faith.
Even though Obama's mother comes from a Christian background, and Obama has attended Trinity United Church of Christ for 20 years (Obama left the church after a well-known scandal we will discuss later). Obama set the record straight on his religion, stating that even though his fathers were Muslim and he grew up in Indonesia, a Muslim country, he still attended secular and Catholic schools and is still a dedicated Christian today.
Obama's faith has even risen from the level of rumor to that of mysterious urban legend. Several e-mails were disseminated, claiming that Barack Hussein (yes, they use his middle name in every e-mail) Obama is actually a Muslim and is lying (and always has lied) about his Christian life-style. Obama's "terrifying" faith may give new meaning to the wearing of presidential Halloween masks this year.
If Obama's Muslim affiliations through his fathers weren't enough to discredit him to some Americans, his Christians affiliations would certainly suffice.
Obama's religious affiliations were so seemingly important to the media and to the American public that when the "scandal" broke about his "radical" pastor of 20 years, Rev. Wright, Obama went so far as to quit his church. (If I can't stress his commitment to that community any further, Obama has been a member of that church for nearly half of his life). If the mix of religion and politics isn't clear enough, CNN reported that Rev. Wright believed Obama had "distanced himself...for political reasons."
To be fair and balanced, Obama also alludes to the mixing of politics and religion. After Father Pfleger, a visiting pastor, made negative remarks about Hillary Clinton, Obama stated that:
"That is why I am deeply disappointed in Father Pfleger's divisive, backward-looking rhetoric, which doesn't reflect the country I see or the desire of people across America to come together in common cause."
Obama links his religious affiliations with those of the rest of the country (The U.S. has a population of over 300 million).
The God Factor is enforced not only by the media and voters, but also by the candidates' campaigns. Last weekend, McCain made a stop in Davenport, Iowa where the opening prayer given by Rev. Arnold Conrad caused some controversy. Conrad implied the Christian god is bigger than all the others, and that He (the Christian god) must help McCain get elected to uphold His "reputation." It is very common for candidates to open rallies with a prayer, but Conrad walked a fine line of asking a divinity for support and claiming Christian supremacy. By including Conrad's prayer in his rally, McCain reinforces the importance and prevalence of the God Factor in this race. Obama's campaign rallies also include an opening prayer, however less controversial and offensive.
Coming from one of the most revered positions in Christianity, second only to Jesus Christ, Pope Benedict XVI, has even entered the political arena by encouraging Catholics to "reject pro-choice politicians."
A candidate's religious affiliation, home church and prayer life has been public knowledge in presidential elections for the past dozen or so cycles. In this election, our candidate's religion has become equivalent in importance to their economic and foreign policies. We see this because a candidate's religious views and strength of faith is actually a deciding factor for many voters. Just as voters bring gender, race and socio-economic status into the voting booth, so do they also bring religion. Each aspect of our lives is equally important in shaping our decisions.
So what happens when religion enters the decision-making process? It certainly has proven to mean greater voter turnout, as is evident in the droves of Christian Evangelicals that voted-in Bush for both elections. It could also mean something more dangerous: bigotry, ignorance and hatred. While religion can be a driving force for social justice, protection of life, peace and tolerance, it can also be a driving force for fear, which in the wise words of Yoda, leads to hate and hate leads to suffering.
It seems that keeping religion out of the voting booth is near impossible. But until we find a balance between acknowledging religion as our Ultimate Concern and using religion to hurt and oppress, I suggest we try to keep religion and politics as separate as possible.
Because the Christian religion is a dominating topic of this discussion, I would like to end with a passage from the Bible, Matthew 22: 15-22:
Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians.
"Teacher," they said, "we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"
But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax."
They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"
"Caesar's," they replied. Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."
When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.
Voting for Skin Color, Not Issues
"Some people speculate that Blacks are voting for Obama strictly because he’s black and not because of his policies, so we took McCain’s policies and pretended they were Obama’s."
2 men and 1 woman were interviewed at random by the Howard Stern Radio show, and when asked who they supported...all claimed Obama. When pressed about issues, they supported McCain's stances - while thinking they were Obama's. All 3 even said they wouldn't mind Sarah Palin being VP!
2 men and 1 woman were interviewed at random by the Howard Stern Radio show, and when asked who they supported...all claimed Obama. When pressed about issues, they supported McCain's stances - while thinking they were Obama's. All 3 even said they wouldn't mind Sarah Palin being VP!
“Does anybody in their right mind think that Gen. Powell would ever endorse anyone that had any patience with terrorists?"
Rush Limbough and George Will have labeled the endorsement race-based and disregard its importance with regard to McCain's legitimacy. Limbough inserts race into the debate once more, belittles Powell's viewpoints, and does not address any of Powell's critiques of the Republican party. Will, as well, reduces the endorsement to race and allows no room for intelligent reasoning on Powell's part. Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, acknowledges the importance of Powell's endorsement, saying it "eliminated the experience argument" against Obama. David Gergen calls Powell's "the most important endorsement of the campaign so far."
Politico's "Arena"poses the question, "What is your response to Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama and his criticism of the Republican campaign?" Academics declare that it is greatly significant because not only is Powell highly respected across the board, but he also provides another major repudiation of President Bush and the Republican Party. Republican strategist Kevin Madden agrees with Axelrod that the endorsement could move swing voters toward Obama. "Arena" moderator Fred Barbash adds that the topic of Powell's endorsement has generated the largest reader response (along with some Palin days), probably signifying the enormity of the endorsement.
Ultimately, Obama received a big legitimacy boost, and McCain was forced to defend his campaign's decisions. Politico calls the day a big win for Obama. This endorsement doesn't bode well for McCain who needs to turn the race around fast in order to pull through on November 4.
Beyond the campaigns, I am personally relieved that someone finally cut through the campaign chatter to address the problem of how we have attached such strong negativity and hatred to Muslims.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
