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
Friday, October 31, 2008
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.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Politics of Hatred
"We must either love each other or die."
Lyndon B. Johnson expressed deep concern for the politics of war and destruction in the 1964 presidential election cycle. The issue then was nuclear proliferation - a melee of fear, hatred and corruption of power.
We are no longer in a cold war, however hatred and fear still drive politics. The most prevalent source of fear and hatred this cycle surrounds Obama's faith and race. Deep in the heart of America, citizens still use racial epithets to express their fear of an African-American or a Muslim president.
My question is, where are these people getting this? Palin has accused Obama of palling around with terrorists, but neither Palin or McCain has mentioned Obama's faith or race in a negative way.
These people have opportunities to learn the truth about Obama's faith and racial background. But what is keeping them from educating themselves? Is it the chain e-mails that spread rumors of Obama affiliating with terrorists or Islamists, is it the kitchen-table conversations that reaffirm attitudes, or is it coming from churches and schools?
This type of ignorance justifies the existance of the electoral college. So the next time you hear someone complain that our votes don't count in the presidential election, this is the reason why.
In the presidential debate last night, McCain proclaimed his pride for the audience members at each of his rallies, however at a previous event he had to interrupt an audience member who called Obama "Arab."
The McCain campaign has contronted the negative stereotypes of African Americans and Muslims. Last week, Senator McCain even took the microphone away from an audience member and corrected her on her misconceptions of Obama.
I have heard many people say that America just "isn't ready for a Black president." But it is this defeatest attitude that enables ignorance and hatred to spread. It is this ignorance and hatred that leads to violence, terrorism, destruction and death. So what if these people are just few in number. Perhaps they don't represent such a large number that would cause alarm. However, every storm is made of individual rain drops. One prejudice leads to another and the fear spreads quickly. From Obama's early entry into the campaign to less than 20 days to the general election, groups of Americans still attack his faith and ethnicity, still express fear of his faith and ethnicity. If nothing else, time has proven that ignornace and hatred is stubborn and a force to be dealt with, even in 2008.
Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendel Holmes prolifically said, "The remedy for bad speech is more speech." My call to action for readers of this blog is to take the lead of Holmes, McCain, Barack and even J.C. himself, and counter such ignorant statements from your classmates, neighbors and even your grandparents. The first step to stopping this cycle of ignorance and hatred is with you and your words.
Lyndon B. Johnson expressed deep concern for the politics of war and destruction in the 1964 presidential election cycle. The issue then was nuclear proliferation - a melee of fear, hatred and corruption of power.
We are no longer in a cold war, however hatred and fear still drive politics. The most prevalent source of fear and hatred this cycle surrounds Obama's faith and race. Deep in the heart of America, citizens still use racial epithets to express their fear of an African-American or a Muslim president.
My question is, where are these people getting this? Palin has accused Obama of palling around with terrorists, but neither Palin or McCain has mentioned Obama's faith or race in a negative way.
These people have opportunities to learn the truth about Obama's faith and racial background. But what is keeping them from educating themselves? Is it the chain e-mails that spread rumors of Obama affiliating with terrorists or Islamists, is it the kitchen-table conversations that reaffirm attitudes, or is it coming from churches and schools?
This type of ignorance justifies the existance of the electoral college. So the next time you hear someone complain that our votes don't count in the presidential election, this is the reason why.
In the presidential debate last night, McCain proclaimed his pride for the audience members at each of his rallies, however at a previous event he had to interrupt an audience member who called Obama "Arab."
The McCain campaign has contronted the negative stereotypes of African Americans and Muslims. Last week, Senator McCain even took the microphone away from an audience member and corrected her on her misconceptions of Obama.
I have heard many people say that America just "isn't ready for a Black president." But it is this defeatest attitude that enables ignorance and hatred to spread. It is this ignorance and hatred that leads to violence, terrorism, destruction and death. So what if these people are just few in number. Perhaps they don't represent such a large number that would cause alarm. However, every storm is made of individual rain drops. One prejudice leads to another and the fear spreads quickly. From Obama's early entry into the campaign to less than 20 days to the general election, groups of Americans still attack his faith and ethnicity, still express fear of his faith and ethnicity. If nothing else, time has proven that ignornace and hatred is stubborn and a force to be dealt with, even in 2008.
Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendel Holmes prolifically said, "The remedy for bad speech is more speech." My call to action for readers of this blog is to take the lead of Holmes, McCain, Barack and even J.C. himself, and counter such ignorant statements from your classmates, neighbors and even your grandparents. The first step to stopping this cycle of ignorance and hatred is with you and your words.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Negative Ads: Are they actually positive?
This Sunday the Washington Post published an article titled, "Those Negative Ads Are a Positive Thing". In this stage in the campaign cycle, many have argued that the campaigns have become far too negative and it often discourages voters. The feel that this campaign has become exceedingly negative is true; both campaigns have had equal negative advertising and very few ads have been released that are not attacking the opponent. However, this article examines negative ads and argues that they actually are more substantive than other advertising. The article looks at four different reasons negative campaigning can actually be a positive. "First, negative ads are more likely than positive ads to be about the issues. Second, negative ad are more likely to be specific when talking about those issues. Third, negative ads are more likely to contain facts. And finally, negative ads are more likely to be about the important issues of the day".
The Final Debate
Tonight's debate has yet to be called boring by critics like the last one in Nashville. There was a large focus on "Joe the Plumber" and the radical associations of Obama. CNN's Election Center says "McCain puts Obama on the spot in final debate" and Fox News says "Candidates Hit Hard at Final Presidential Debate". It will be interesting to see how the tactics and comments of both candidates are portrayed and examined over the next day. As of now, it seems as though people believe McCain was more attacking of Obama, which is common of the under dog in an election at this point in the campaign. McCain's strong statement stating that he is not President Bush will be an interesting phrase to track the reaction of voters.
Key Senate races
With all the talk about the economy, Acorn, Bill Ayers, and Joe the Plumber, we often forget that there are key races that will impact this election and the majority that the next president will be working with in the legislative branches. The National Journal ranks the Senate races that are will be most interesting to watch, and the most important for the Democrats who are hoping to have a "filibuster proof majority". The number one race they said to watch is the open seat in Virginia, which is also an important state in the presidential election. While it is not impossible for the Democrats to win this majority, The National Journal says that Obama's margins of losing must be low in many of the southern states for it to be achieved.
Pop Queen Bashes Gov. Palin
"Sarah Palin can't come to my party, Sarah Palin can't come to my show!" Madonna said during the opening concert of her Sweet & Sticky tour in the U.S. At her recently sold-out concerts in New York and New Jersey, the pop princess sang chants with the audience saying "get off my street Sarah Palin, accompanied by video montages of Senator McCain next to Adolf Hitler. Madonna, like other stars, seem to be using more unconventional means to promote their candidate. (YouTube Video...contains mature language)
Monday, October 13, 2008
Distraction or obligation?
Are "20, 30, 40 million" people really talking about this? Should they be talking about this?
Thursday, October 9, 2008
The Advertising War; Politics, Money, and Message
A state by state analysis shows the disparity between Obama and McCain in spending on advertisements. The only two states where McCain is outspending Obama are Iowa and Minnesota.
Barack Obama heats up the presidential race by buying 30 minute blocks of airtime on CBS and NBC during prime time. The advertisements will run Wednesday the 29th at 8 p.m., less than a week before the general election. This strategic move will not bankrupt Senator Obama who is reported to be doing fine financially.
"'This is another indication, if there needs to be any more, that Barack Obama's got more money than [available] television time to buy,' said Evan Tracey, COO of the Campaign Media Analysis Group in Arlington, Va."
Unlike Senator Obama, Senator McCain is limited to the amount of money he can spend and raise because he accepted public financing. This has also affected his ability to by advertisements in battleground states such as Florida and Pennsylvania.
But McCain isn't taken anything lying down. His most recent advertisements have been very negative of Obama. Seventy-three percent of McCain's advertisements have been negative compared to sixty-one percent for Obama. The long and short of it all though comes down to financing. Both candidates spent almost $4 million dollars in Ohio last week, the most of any state. But Obama is able to spend more than $2 million in the key battleground states of Pennsylvania, Virginia and Florida, while McCain wasn't able to spend $2 million in any state.
Not surprisingly, some of McCain's attacks leveled at Obama have stemmed from prior associations with 1960s anti-war radical Bill Ayers. Obama is adamant about a lack of influence that Ayers has on his political views and considers McCain's personal attacks as an attempt to "score cheap political points." Bill Ayers was a college professor of education at the University of Illinois where Obama met him. Obama further dismisses McCain's attacks by saying that they are an attempt to "change the subject".
Gallup says race may not be a factor
Throughout the course of this campaign, there has been a lot of talk over Barack Obama's race and how that will be a factor in determining who will vote for him. While in the end what really matters is how people vote or if they even turn out to vote, Gallup reports that people say race does not really play a significant role in how likely or not likely they are to vote for either candidate. We often find that people say one thing and do another, and this could be possible in this election. In the 21st century, it is not very "politically correct" to say you will not vote for someone because they are of a certain race. As the last few weeks of the campaign play out, the race factor will be one that is going to be particularly interesting in this historic election. Gallup conducted three polls that asked how race would factor in voting, and they ultimately conclude "Obama's race may be as much a plus as a minus".
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
What do these 3 have in common? They're related!
PresidentFranklin D.
Roosevelt
VP Candidate
Gov. Sarah Palin
Former British Royalty
Princess Diana
According to Ancestry.com, Gov. Palin's lineage dates back to former President FDR and Princess Diana. FDR and Palin are 9th cousins, once removed, they share an ancestor Rev. John Lothrop, who arrived in Massachusetts colony in 1634. Palin and Princess Diana share a 9th great grandfather, John Strong who was born in England in 1605 - making her Palin's 10th cousin. Will Sarah Palin become the next Princess of the American people?
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Debate Tonight
McCain needs a win in tonight's debate. A New York Times article stresses that this debate is critical for his campaign considering the results of the past two debates and voter perception.
The attacks keep coming
As Obama's camp attacked McCain on Monday with a 13 minute documentary about his association with the "Keating Five", the RNC released information on their website about Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers. On GOP.com, the Republicans discuss how Obama's campaign has tried to downplay his relationship with Ayers, and then explains the "truth" about his relationship. Regardless of both candidates associations with what they have been accused of, it is interesting to note that your past will always follow you. In this campaign, especially in ads, the associations of the candidates have become critical in attacks by the oppositions.
The Experience Question
Any time the Democratic Party attacks Palin for “lack of experience,” the McCain camp is quick to rebut with the point that Obama has even less experience than the female VP candidate.
Let’s discuss the experience question and who can claim more political chops…Palin or Obama?
Sarah Palin’s Political Career- Summary
Palin got into politics after joining the PTA, then getting elected to city council in 1992. She became mayor of her town in 1996, defeating a 3-term incumbent at only 32 years of age. She subsequently won a second term as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, and then from 2003 to 2004 served as the chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.
In December 2006, Palin was elected as the first female governor of America’s largest state. During her governance thus far, she has overseen the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission and the construction of a $40 billion natural gas pipeline. In addition, she returned over $1000 to each Alaskan citizen from windfall state oil revenues despite opposition from the big oil companies. Her politics are ridden with economic reform and lessening government spending. She is responsible for the state’s budget and approving/disapproving legislation.
Most of her political career has been focused on energy and economic/tax reform.
More info.
Barack Obama’s Political Career- Summary
After graduating from Harvard Law and working as an attorney and community organizer in Chicago, Obama was elected to Illinois senate in 1996. In 2000, he ran for congress and lost to Rep. Bobby Rush. From 2003-2004 Obama served as chair of the Health and Human Services Committee then ran for a seat in the US Senate. He was elected with 70% of the vote and gave the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.
Just a couple years later, Obama announced that he was considering running for President. As we all know, he became the Democratic nominee for President over Hillary Clinton and later selected Senator Joe Biden of Delaware for his running mate. Republicans have criticized Obama's experience, which wanes in comparison to McCain's political career, but in all fairness, McCain has many many years on the Democratic candidate.
See a more complete timeline of Obama’s political career here.
Comparison
Obama chose Biden as his running mate for his years of political experience and involvement in foreign affairs. McCain chose Palin as his VP for her knowledge of energy issues and her “Washington outsider” vibe as a mother of five and the first female Alaskan governor. In debating experience, we cannot forget that it’s the top of the ticket that matters. No one can argue that Obama has more experience than McCain. Obama’s pick of Joe Biden to make up for his perceived lack of experience in politics and foreign affairs was smart, but doesn’t ameliorate his inexperience—and it is Obama who is running for President. Sarah Palin is not. Even so, she has more executive experience than the Democratic Presidential nominee, indisputably. In the beginning of their political careers, Palin trumps Obama as the mayor of a town in Alaska compared to a community organizer. Furthermore, she has pushed for more reform in her career, even though both Palin and Obama began in politics around the same time. Palin also has a stronger resume in the area of bipartisan efforts and crossing the aisle for reform. For example, in 2004, Palin joined a Democratic representative in an ethics complaint concerning an international trade deal against the Republican Attorney General of the time. Her involvement and efforts led to his resignation. Learn more about this by clicking here.
Conclusion
Palin and Obama are hard to compare in terms of experience because their careers have both been unconventional and unique. Palin, still, wins over Obama in terms of executive experience. Also, Obama’s seat at the top of his party’s ticket should invite more scrutiny and heat over lack of experience, and a good VP pick does not make up for the Presidential nominee’s short political career. Yes, the VP is a “heartbeat away” from the Presidency, and Palin’s experience with energy issues and economic reform should allow Americans to rest easy in knowing she could be President if necessary. Even so, McCain is the Republican nominee for President and Palin, his running mate. People might want to worry, though, about if Obama is elected President. Joe Biden will not be the one in the Oval Office. Is someone who has never served in the military suitable to be our Commander and Chief in a time of war? Just one of my concerns. Food for thought...
Let’s discuss the experience question and who can claim more political chops…Palin or Obama?
Sarah Palin’s Political Career- Summary
Palin got into politics after joining the PTA, then getting elected to city council in 1992. She became mayor of her town in 1996, defeating a 3-term incumbent at only 32 years of age. She subsequently won a second term as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, and then from 2003 to 2004 served as the chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.
In December 2006, Palin was elected as the first female governor of America’s largest state. During her governance thus far, she has overseen the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission and the construction of a $40 billion natural gas pipeline. In addition, she returned over $1000 to each Alaskan citizen from windfall state oil revenues despite opposition from the big oil companies. Her politics are ridden with economic reform and lessening government spending. She is responsible for the state’s budget and approving/disapproving legislation.
Most of her political career has been focused on energy and economic/tax reform.
More info.
Barack Obama’s Political Career- Summary
After graduating from Harvard Law and working as an attorney and community organizer in Chicago, Obama was elected to Illinois senate in 1996. In 2000, he ran for congress and lost to Rep. Bobby Rush. From 2003-2004 Obama served as chair of the Health and Human Services Committee then ran for a seat in the US Senate. He was elected with 70% of the vote and gave the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.
Just a couple years later, Obama announced that he was considering running for President. As we all know, he became the Democratic nominee for President over Hillary Clinton and later selected Senator Joe Biden of Delaware for his running mate. Republicans have criticized Obama's experience, which wanes in comparison to McCain's political career, but in all fairness, McCain has many many years on the Democratic candidate.
See a more complete timeline of Obama’s political career here.
Comparison
Obama chose Biden as his running mate for his years of political experience and involvement in foreign affairs. McCain chose Palin as his VP for her knowledge of energy issues and her “Washington outsider” vibe as a mother of five and the first female Alaskan governor. In debating experience, we cannot forget that it’s the top of the ticket that matters. No one can argue that Obama has more experience than McCain. Obama’s pick of Joe Biden to make up for his perceived lack of experience in politics and foreign affairs was smart, but doesn’t ameliorate his inexperience—and it is Obama who is running for President. Sarah Palin is not. Even so, she has more executive experience than the Democratic Presidential nominee, indisputably. In the beginning of their political careers, Palin trumps Obama as the mayor of a town in Alaska compared to a community organizer. Furthermore, she has pushed for more reform in her career, even though both Palin and Obama began in politics around the same time. Palin also has a stronger resume in the area of bipartisan efforts and crossing the aisle for reform. For example, in 2004, Palin joined a Democratic representative in an ethics complaint concerning an international trade deal against the Republican Attorney General of the time. Her involvement and efforts led to his resignation. Learn more about this by clicking here.
Conclusion
Palin and Obama are hard to compare in terms of experience because their careers have both been unconventional and unique. Palin, still, wins over Obama in terms of executive experience. Also, Obama’s seat at the top of his party’s ticket should invite more scrutiny and heat over lack of experience, and a good VP pick does not make up for the Presidential nominee’s short political career. Yes, the VP is a “heartbeat away” from the Presidency, and Palin’s experience with energy issues and economic reform should allow Americans to rest easy in knowing she could be President if necessary. Even so, McCain is the Republican nominee for President and Palin, his running mate. People might want to worry, though, about if Obama is elected President. Joe Biden will not be the one in the Oval Office. Is someone who has never served in the military suitable to be our Commander and Chief in a time of war? Just one of my concerns. Food for thought...
Monday, October 6, 2008
To protect, serve and vote
Watch CBS Videos Online
Surprising trends
The popularity of absentee voting seems to be on the rise from California to Massachusetts, but there is another trend in absentee voting that is disconcerting for Republicans. The military vote is almost as sure as the South as a Republican base, but maybe not this year despite McCain’s focus on his time as POW in Viet Nam. In 2004 troops supported President Bush four to one over Kerry despite the on-going wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. According as USA Today study, two thirds of those surveyed cited Kerry’s “anti-war activities” following his service in Viet Nam as a deciding factor in their vote.
Today, however, McCain is not only getting beaten out by Obama for military monetary donations, but until recently he was also behind Ron Paul who is know to be a staunch anti-war proponant. Compared to the donations Bush receive in 2004 (which beat Kerry’s donations by 50 percent), this year’s numbers could mean disappointment for Republicans this November, and possibly a larger trend among “security voters” that supported the 2004 Bush ticket.
Is there any telling?
However, not everyone is convinced that donations from active duty troops are a good indicator of how the military vote will swing. A Kennebec Journal article quoted a former West Point professor who doesn’t think that too much should be made of the just 323 donations that have been made by active military personnel this election cycle.
"If, on a bad day, a guy gets that letter that says [his tour has been extended] from 12 to 15 months, that could spur a quick donation and expression of anger," he said. "Donating helps members of the military express their political views privately."
A Gallup poll before the RNC or DNC were held found that McCain lead Obama among military voters 56 to 34 percent. However, a recent poll from The Military Times shows that the small trend of donors could translate into larger numbers next month. The poll found that only 46 percent of military voters identified themselves as Republican, versus 60 percent in 2004. Nationally this relatively small group might not mean a make-or-break for either candidate, but when the numbers are considered in conjunction with their state-by-state concentration another picture is painted.
Hillary Clinton beat Obama in various battleground states, and dominated the military vote between the two candidates. While Obama appears to be doing well in most of the true battleground states, often his lead is within the margin of error of the poll. Furthermore, it is still unclear whether or not he has been able to capture the support Clinton received from military personnel in states like Virginia and Colorado where the group could play a decisive role in which way the electoral votes fall.
Rocking the vote
The military is doing what it can to make sure troops are getting involved to the extent they can from across the ocean or wherever they are stationed. The “Get out the vote” campaign from the Pentagon has started a spirited radio and television campaign on American Forces radio and television. The non-partisan ads are even comical, sometimes reminiscent of Monty Python skits and other comedic acts, reports the New York Times. The goal is to keep up troop’s awareness of the things going on at home, and make sure they are fully informed on dates and requirements for submitting an absentee ballot.
“We started making sure early in the year that they should look to their state’s deadlines for registering and voting,’’ said Paul Waldrop, chief of the American Forces Radio and Television production office in an interview with the times. “It’s a bi-partisan effort that says that the election reaches to them and we remind them of the importance of their duty as citizens to vote.”
The ads in 177 countries, sometimes as often as 140 times a day. Whether or not they will make a difference has yet to be seen, but the military absentee vote is sector to watch over the next month.
Campaign Styles for McCain and Obama
In the 2008 presidential race, it is interesting to compare the campaign styles that both candidates rely on to portray the image that they want the voter to perceive them as. A campaign style refers to a package that the candidate uses in order to present his or her message and image in a way that makes it easy for them to communicate to the voters and in a way that makes it easy for the voters to remember them. Because there are so many different sources that a candidate must manipulate the get his style across, it is important for the candidate to not only choose a specific style, but they must consistently use this style in order to saturate the voters with the image they hope to portray.
In general, there are three different types of styles; the incumbency style, challenger style and the incumbency/challenger mix style. The incumbency style refers to a candidate who delivers their message in a way to imply that they are not worried about the game of politics or of getting re-elected, rather that they are more worried about the state in which their country is in. By showing the voters that they are more in tuned with what is going it helps them prove that they not only have the knowledge about the current situations, but the ability and leadership skills to handle them. The strategies that are used by candidates in this position range from shedding light on the positives of the current administration of which they run, to intensifying issues such as the economy or national security giving them the ability to act presidential in times of crisis situations. Usually the incumbency style is framed in a positive light, where the candidate remains above the “trenches” and leaves the attack dog roll for the vice presidential candidate (See this website). Often they will show they have charisma for the office by staging events and press conferences within the white house, while other times they show their presidential qualities through consulting with world leaders, manipulating domestic issues, or appropriating funds. Either way, the incumbent campaign style is meant for a person holding office to remind the public of his or her effectiveness and experience in office.
Although there is more to be said for the incumbency style, this does not seem to be the dominate style in the 2008 presidential election between Obama and McCain. The two styles that pertain to this election are the “challenger style,” and the “incumbent/challenger style.” John McCain may not have had as much luck as Obama did with adopting the full on challenger approach, which forced him to merge incumbency style with challenger style to find a perfect balance in styles for his campaign. Before we talk about McCain’s merge of both styles, it is essential to examine aspects from a style that both candidates have taken on - the “challenger style.”
The challenger style can be defined as a deliberate strategy that is used to persuade voters of two things; first, that change is needed, and second that this specific candidate is the person to bring about this change (See this website). The key to making this work is for the candidate to show that change from the current administration is necessary, and with the current administration being held by the Republican George W. Bush, this style has inevitably been successful for Obama.
While there are the two main steps that I have talked about, making voters believe there needs to be a change and making voters believe that he or she is the specific person for the job, there are certain strategies under the challenger style that we have seen both candidates adopt in order to get their message and image across.
There are a couple strategies that both candidates have done really well with, the first being the duty of the candidate to attack the records of their opponents (See this website). Whether it was against Hillary Clinton or John McCain, Obama has done a remarkable job on attacking the records of his opponents. In reference to McCain, the most important strategy that Obama has used in terms of attacking his record has been simply drawing a straight line connection between McCain and Bush by running ad’s saying such things as “McCain has voted with Bush 95% of the time, what makes you think he is any different?” Obama’s message of attack on McCain is not only clear, but it ties back to his general message that America needs change.
While Obama used this strategy to remind voters of the unhappy state of affairs of our country and the connection his opponent has with these, McCain used the strategy of attacking his opponent’s record to create doubt in the voter’s minds about the Obama’s capability of running our country. Whether it is in his speeches or his commercials, McCain has been effective in reminding the American Voters of Obama’s inexperience and under qualification for being the president of the United States. Both Obama and McCain have maximized on the opportunity to attack each other, a crucial tool used in the challenger campaign style. While both are effective at attacking each others records, it does not go unnoticed that they delegate the harshest of attacks to their vice presidential nominees. They leave the “nasty” language and overly-aggressive attacks up to surrogates of their campaigns in order to avoid direct association with such out of line behavior which has been proven to backfire.
A second strategy that both candidates have used is that of taking the offensive position on issues (See this website). Under this strategy, it is essential for a candidate to not only avoid offering detailed plans of what they are going to do with the current issues at hand, but also to show how ineffective their opponent has been in dealing with these issues. At the presidential level, it is almost impossible not to offer detail about what they plan on doing on issues such as the economy and national security (the main topics of the first presidential debate), therefore it is necessary for the candidates to suggest that their opponent has been ineffective in implementing these plans in his current position of power. McCain accused Obama of being ineffective in lowering taxes for the middleclass by saying that “Obama voted in the Senate to raise taxes on anyone making more than $42,000 a year.” Whether this was true or not was beside the point, the point was that he was showing how Obama would be inefficient in the white house, and have an insignificant effect on the “middle class” that he claims he will support (See this website).
On the same issue, Obama spoke about how McCain has always supported Bush’s tax cuts on “America’s most wealthy,” who are the same people who have let our economy fall. By referencing McCain’s support on tax cuts for the top 5% of the wealthiest Americans, Obama draws a direct parallel between the Bush Administrations economic plans and McCains future plans of our economy. Because of the economic crisis that we face today, Obama’s strategy is powerful in proving that McCains current plans will be ineffective in making the positive changes we need to fix our economy because they are no different than the plans of today. While both candidates used the debates to actually specify their economic and security plans, they also both used strategies to show how their opposition has not only been ineffective, but will be ineffective if they are elected to office.
A third strategy that both candidates have used is the calling for a change strategy (See this website). From the beginning “Change” has been Obama’s motto. In the primaries he used his advertising, speeches, and images to promote his theme “change we can believe in.” More recently, Obama has changed his slogan to “change we need.” The first slogan was meant to introduce the idea of “change” and invite people on board, while the second slogan is more of a “call voters to action.” The second slogan is a more aggressive approach to persuading voters to believe that Obama is not only the change that we can believe in, but also the change that we need as a country. While Obama adopted this strategy right off the bat, McCain may have stolen his thunder at the Republican National Convention when he called for “real change.” McCain has paired his slogan “country first,” with “real change” in order to remind the voters that McCain not only knows change is necessary, but that he has the experience to actually deliver the change rather than just talk about it. Both candidates not only called for change, but they did so in a way that portrayed each of their "simple" messages.
Lastly, with an economic recession and a war at our feet, a strategy that has been critical for both candidates has been emphasizing optimism for the future (See this website). Obama is especially talented with using the tool of rhetoric in order to encourage the voters to have an optimistic outlook for the future. Obama also has a great understanding of what the majority of voters are interested in, and a grasp on what will benefit the majority of voters. Because of this, he is able to frame issues such as the economy to relate to the voters, which in turn, inspire the voters to have optimism towards his leadership. As Americans, we are in an economic crisis, most people are primarily concerned with money, and Obama has grasped this concept and strategically planned his message for “change” around the optimism in our economic future. In short, Obama not only speaks about the terrible existing conditions, but he uses optimism to inspire people to support his cause for change.
It is much harder for McCain to separate himself from the current administration, much less criticize them for how terrible of a state our country is in. Therefore, McCain had to emphasize optimism for the future not just through change, but through “country first.” While Obama’s strong point is emphasizing optimism for the economy, McCain’s forte is emphasizing optimism for the security of our country. McCain believes that “the highest priority for any President is protecting the lives of American citizens, defending their personal freedom, and securing our land and resources” (See this website). By speaking about a day when our citizens and our land is free from fear of attack, McCain uses optimism to inspire people to support his cause for putting the country first. Both candidates share optimistic outlooks for tomorrow, it is just a matter of which one does a better job at appealing to the voters aspirations (See this website). Do the voter’s priorities lie in a future with a better economy or a future with better security?
It is evident that both McCain and Obama use strategies from the challenger style in their campaign; but, while Obama primarily uses challenger style, McCain has tendencies of combining both incumbent and challenger styles to form a hybrid style. The hybrid style is essential for McCain because it not ensures the Republican base that he does not fall to far from the basic principles of the Bush Administration, but it also ensures both republicans and independents that while he supports the ideals of the Bush Administration, he still believes that there needs to be a change in the way situations and current events are handled.
While both Obama and McCain have taken advantage of opportunities which offer incumbent strategies, such as speaking at the white house with the presidential seal in front of them or meeting with world leaders, most of these opportunities and strategies play in favor of McCain the way the challenger style plays to the favor of Obama. By emphasizing all of his accomplishments as a politician and a military man, McCain certainly persuades the voters to recognize him as not only an experienced leader, but a qualified one. Secondly, with the advantages of the Republican Party at the head of the United States, McCain is able to have opportunities to show presidential charisma in the media that Obama cannot.
In the end it is clear that both Candidates use strategies from multiple campaign styles, but it is clear which styles favor which candidates. While Obama has mastered the challenger style from the beginning, McCain has had to conform to the incumbent/challenger style that, so far, has best represented him. It will be interesting to watch the strategies in the last month in the campaign to see whether the candidates merely intensify the strategies they have been using, or begin dominating more strategies from the other campaign styles.
In general, there are three different types of styles; the incumbency style, challenger style and the incumbency/challenger mix style. The incumbency style refers to a candidate who delivers their message in a way to imply that they are not worried about the game of politics or of getting re-elected, rather that they are more worried about the state in which their country is in. By showing the voters that they are more in tuned with what is going it helps them prove that they not only have the knowledge about the current situations, but the ability and leadership skills to handle them. The strategies that are used by candidates in this position range from shedding light on the positives of the current administration of which they run, to intensifying issues such as the economy or national security giving them the ability to act presidential in times of crisis situations. Usually the incumbency style is framed in a positive light, where the candidate remains above the “trenches” and leaves the attack dog roll for the vice presidential candidate (See this website). Often they will show they have charisma for the office by staging events and press conferences within the white house, while other times they show their presidential qualities through consulting with world leaders, manipulating domestic issues, or appropriating funds. Either way, the incumbent campaign style is meant for a person holding office to remind the public of his or her effectiveness and experience in office.
Although there is more to be said for the incumbency style, this does not seem to be the dominate style in the 2008 presidential election between Obama and McCain. The two styles that pertain to this election are the “challenger style,” and the “incumbent/challenger style.” John McCain may not have had as much luck as Obama did with adopting the full on challenger approach, which forced him to merge incumbency style with challenger style to find a perfect balance in styles for his campaign. Before we talk about McCain’s merge of both styles, it is essential to examine aspects from a style that both candidates have taken on - the “challenger style.”
The challenger style can be defined as a deliberate strategy that is used to persuade voters of two things; first, that change is needed, and second that this specific candidate is the person to bring about this change (See this website). The key to making this work is for the candidate to show that change from the current administration is necessary, and with the current administration being held by the Republican George W. Bush, this style has inevitably been successful for Obama.
While there are the two main steps that I have talked about, making voters believe there needs to be a change and making voters believe that he or she is the specific person for the job, there are certain strategies under the challenger style that we have seen both candidates adopt in order to get their message and image across.
There are a couple strategies that both candidates have done really well with, the first being the duty of the candidate to attack the records of their opponents (See this website). Whether it was against Hillary Clinton or John McCain, Obama has done a remarkable job on attacking the records of his opponents. In reference to McCain, the most important strategy that Obama has used in terms of attacking his record has been simply drawing a straight line connection between McCain and Bush by running ad’s saying such things as “McCain has voted with Bush 95% of the time, what makes you think he is any different?” Obama’s message of attack on McCain is not only clear, but it ties back to his general message that America needs change.
While Obama used this strategy to remind voters of the unhappy state of affairs of our country and the connection his opponent has with these, McCain used the strategy of attacking his opponent’s record to create doubt in the voter’s minds about the Obama’s capability of running our country. Whether it is in his speeches or his commercials, McCain has been effective in reminding the American Voters of Obama’s inexperience and under qualification for being the president of the United States. Both Obama and McCain have maximized on the opportunity to attack each other, a crucial tool used in the challenger campaign style. While both are effective at attacking each others records, it does not go unnoticed that they delegate the harshest of attacks to their vice presidential nominees. They leave the “nasty” language and overly-aggressive attacks up to surrogates of their campaigns in order to avoid direct association with such out of line behavior which has been proven to backfire.
A second strategy that both candidates have used is that of taking the offensive position on issues (See this website). Under this strategy, it is essential for a candidate to not only avoid offering detailed plans of what they are going to do with the current issues at hand, but also to show how ineffective their opponent has been in dealing with these issues. At the presidential level, it is almost impossible not to offer detail about what they plan on doing on issues such as the economy and national security (the main topics of the first presidential debate), therefore it is necessary for the candidates to suggest that their opponent has been ineffective in implementing these plans in his current position of power. McCain accused Obama of being ineffective in lowering taxes for the middleclass by saying that “Obama voted in the Senate to raise taxes on anyone making more than $42,000 a year.” Whether this was true or not was beside the point, the point was that he was showing how Obama would be inefficient in the white house, and have an insignificant effect on the “middle class” that he claims he will support (See this website).
On the same issue, Obama spoke about how McCain has always supported Bush’s tax cuts on “America’s most wealthy,” who are the same people who have let our economy fall. By referencing McCain’s support on tax cuts for the top 5% of the wealthiest Americans, Obama draws a direct parallel between the Bush Administrations economic plans and McCains future plans of our economy. Because of the economic crisis that we face today, Obama’s strategy is powerful in proving that McCains current plans will be ineffective in making the positive changes we need to fix our economy because they are no different than the plans of today. While both candidates used the debates to actually specify their economic and security plans, they also both used strategies to show how their opposition has not only been ineffective, but will be ineffective if they are elected to office.
A third strategy that both candidates have used is the calling for a change strategy (See this website). From the beginning “Change” has been Obama’s motto. In the primaries he used his advertising, speeches, and images to promote his theme “change we can believe in.” More recently, Obama has changed his slogan to “change we need.” The first slogan was meant to introduce the idea of “change” and invite people on board, while the second slogan is more of a “call voters to action.” The second slogan is a more aggressive approach to persuading voters to believe that Obama is not only the change that we can believe in, but also the change that we need as a country. While Obama adopted this strategy right off the bat, McCain may have stolen his thunder at the Republican National Convention when he called for “real change.” McCain has paired his slogan “country first,” with “real change” in order to remind the voters that McCain not only knows change is necessary, but that he has the experience to actually deliver the change rather than just talk about it. Both candidates not only called for change, but they did so in a way that portrayed each of their "simple" messages.
Lastly, with an economic recession and a war at our feet, a strategy that has been critical for both candidates has been emphasizing optimism for the future (See this website). Obama is especially talented with using the tool of rhetoric in order to encourage the voters to have an optimistic outlook for the future. Obama also has a great understanding of what the majority of voters are interested in, and a grasp on what will benefit the majority of voters. Because of this, he is able to frame issues such as the economy to relate to the voters, which in turn, inspire the voters to have optimism towards his leadership. As Americans, we are in an economic crisis, most people are primarily concerned with money, and Obama has grasped this concept and strategically planned his message for “change” around the optimism in our economic future. In short, Obama not only speaks about the terrible existing conditions, but he uses optimism to inspire people to support his cause for change.
It is much harder for McCain to separate himself from the current administration, much less criticize them for how terrible of a state our country is in. Therefore, McCain had to emphasize optimism for the future not just through change, but through “country first.” While Obama’s strong point is emphasizing optimism for the economy, McCain’s forte is emphasizing optimism for the security of our country. McCain believes that “the highest priority for any President is protecting the lives of American citizens, defending their personal freedom, and securing our land and resources” (See this website). By speaking about a day when our citizens and our land is free from fear of attack, McCain uses optimism to inspire people to support his cause for putting the country first. Both candidates share optimistic outlooks for tomorrow, it is just a matter of which one does a better job at appealing to the voters aspirations (See this website). Do the voter’s priorities lie in a future with a better economy or a future with better security?
It is evident that both McCain and Obama use strategies from the challenger style in their campaign; but, while Obama primarily uses challenger style, McCain has tendencies of combining both incumbent and challenger styles to form a hybrid style. The hybrid style is essential for McCain because it not ensures the Republican base that he does not fall to far from the basic principles of the Bush Administration, but it also ensures both republicans and independents that while he supports the ideals of the Bush Administration, he still believes that there needs to be a change in the way situations and current events are handled.
While both Obama and McCain have taken advantage of opportunities which offer incumbent strategies, such as speaking at the white house with the presidential seal in front of them or meeting with world leaders, most of these opportunities and strategies play in favor of McCain the way the challenger style plays to the favor of Obama. By emphasizing all of his accomplishments as a politician and a military man, McCain certainly persuades the voters to recognize him as not only an experienced leader, but a qualified one. Secondly, with the advantages of the Republican Party at the head of the United States, McCain is able to have opportunities to show presidential charisma in the media that Obama cannot.
In the end it is clear that both Candidates use strategies from multiple campaign styles, but it is clear which styles favor which candidates. While Obama has mastered the challenger style from the beginning, McCain has had to conform to the incumbent/challenger style that, so far, has best represented him. It will be interesting to watch the strategies in the last month in the campaign to see whether the candidates merely intensify the strategies they have been using, or begin dominating more strategies from the other campaign styles.
Early Voting and the impact on this election
Early Voting has become more and more common in recent elections. Whether or not early voting will occur and the requirements that go along with it is at the discretion of the individual state. The overall goal of early voting is to allow more people the chance to vote and to increase participation. The “Why Tuesday?” movement describes early voting as one of the solutions to increasing participation since they believe that Tuesday is not the ideal voting day.
Which states participate in early voting?
The Early Voting Information Center at Reed College breaks down each state that participates in early voting and explains whether the state requires an excuse or not.
The states that participate in early voting with no excuse (meaning anyone can participate) are: AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, LA, ME, MD, MT, NE, NV, NM, NC, ND, OH, OK, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, WV, WI, and WY.
States that participate in early voting, but only with an excuse are: KY, MN, VA, and the District of Columbia.
For a detailed breakdown of each state and their requirements, visit: http://earlyvoting.net/states/abslaws.php
How will early voting affect this election?
Early voting traditionally has been seen as something that was taken advantage only by those who are very partisan and informed, simply because it does not have as much hype as November 4th. Early voting in this election, however, has been reported as crucial for the Obama campaign and as a strength in his campaign efforts.
Politico highlighted early voting in Ohio that began on October 3rd. Early voting could be crucial to this battleground state, and since this is the first time Ohio has ever had early voting it will be even more interesting to view the results. Obama has been pushing the youth vote throughout his campaign, and this is no different in Ohio. Free busing was made available in Ohio last week for students to go to the Veterans Memorial Park Amphitheater to register to vote or cast their ballots. Students for Obama have been heading up the early voting effort in Ohio, and they will be attempting to beat the record 47% of voters between ages 18-24 that voted in the last election.
Sights of Obama supporters early voting have also been spotted in Nebraska, whose early voting began on September 29th. At the Douglas County Commission office in Omaha “about 50 people marched ... with one person beating a drum and another using a megaphone to lead chants.”
Another important state in this election, Iowa, began its early voting on September 25th. The Hotline also reported in an article about Iowa’s early voting, that Obama’s campaign “is aggressively to bank votes early” A strength of the Republican Party is voter turn out, but will this still hold true if Obama’s camp continues to push early voting? According to The Hotline, early voting in Iowa has continued to grow over the past eight years and this year Obama is targeting voters who do not typically vote. If his efforts are successful, the number of nearly 1/3 of the voters early voting in Iowa will most likely see a significant increase this year. Iowa’s Secretary of State, Michael Maura, predicts that Iowa will have a record turn out of voting and much of this will be due to Obama’s push for early voting. The McCain campaign, although fully aware of the Obama strategy, are still focusing on getting out the vote on November 4th. Iowa will also be interesting to watch on Election Day because it is the first year for it to practice same-day voter registration.
Which states participate in early voting?
The Early Voting Information Center at Reed College breaks down each state that participates in early voting and explains whether the state requires an excuse or not.
The states that participate in early voting with no excuse (meaning anyone can participate) are: AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, LA, ME, MD, MT, NE, NV, NM, NC, ND, OH, OK, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, WV, WI, and WY.
States that participate in early voting, but only with an excuse are: KY, MN, VA, and the District of Columbia.
For a detailed breakdown of each state and their requirements, visit: http://earlyvoting.net/states/abslaws.php
How will early voting affect this election?
Early voting traditionally has been seen as something that was taken advantage only by those who are very partisan and informed, simply because it does not have as much hype as November 4th. Early voting in this election, however, has been reported as crucial for the Obama campaign and as a strength in his campaign efforts.
Politico highlighted early voting in Ohio that began on October 3rd. Early voting could be crucial to this battleground state, and since this is the first time Ohio has ever had early voting it will be even more interesting to view the results. Obama has been pushing the youth vote throughout his campaign, and this is no different in Ohio. Free busing was made available in Ohio last week for students to go to the Veterans Memorial Park Amphitheater to register to vote or cast their ballots. Students for Obama have been heading up the early voting effort in Ohio, and they will be attempting to beat the record 47% of voters between ages 18-24 that voted in the last election.
Sights of Obama supporters early voting have also been spotted in Nebraska, whose early voting began on September 29th. At the Douglas County Commission office in Omaha “about 50 people marched ... with one person beating a drum and another using a megaphone to lead chants.”
Another important state in this election, Iowa, began its early voting on September 25th. The Hotline also reported in an article about Iowa’s early voting, that Obama’s campaign “is aggressively to bank votes early” A strength of the Republican Party is voter turn out, but will this still hold true if Obama’s camp continues to push early voting? According to The Hotline, early voting in Iowa has continued to grow over the past eight years and this year Obama is targeting voters who do not typically vote. If his efforts are successful, the number of nearly 1/3 of the voters early voting in Iowa will most likely see a significant increase this year. Iowa’s Secretary of State, Michael Maura, predicts that Iowa will have a record turn out of voting and much of this will be due to Obama’s push for early voting. The McCain campaign, although fully aware of the Obama strategy, are still focusing on getting out the vote on November 4th. Iowa will also be interesting to watch on Election Day because it is the first year for it to practice same-day voter registration.
Voting Abroad and International Opinion
Do we forget about our 6 million citizens abroad?
Getting the vote to American citizens abroad is crucial in this election. With the heat of this election, current claims suggest that oversea voting will skyrocket this year. Government Computer News reports that The Overseas Voting Foundation reports their 16 outreach websites have very high activity with over 2 million visitors to the sites. In September an average of 25,000 visitors per day! The OVF hopes to reach over 6 million military and American civilians living abroad. The Foundation also reaches out to large groups of students studying abroad during college, a specifically important target audience. OVF President, Susan Dzieduszycka-Suinat said "With a tight race expected, the U.S. expatriate vote is a constituency that cannot be ignored." Further, OVF websites have been incorporated into Obama and McCain campaigns in order to reach voters abroad. Some citizens abroad are anxious to vote in this historical election. Sofia Holder, a previous resident of Houston, TX, is now living in Berlin. She tells the Spiegel newspaper "If John McCain wins, I'm not going back to the states." Most of the registration drives, such as the one in Berlin, are hosted by Democrats Abroad. Democrats Abroad is the official "Overseas Brance of the US Democratic Party." The organization has committees in over 40 countries who plan events, host fundraisers and most importantly, register people to vote. Today, there is an Obama & Biden fundraiser in Belgium followed by a live viewing of the presidential debates in Paris on Tuesday - well, 3 AM Wednesday in their case. The site includes detailed information on how to vote, where to register and even details on party issues. The following is an Ad from Democrats Abroad:
Republicans Abroad also hosts seminars and drives internationally, but they don't seem to be making as large of a statement. Similarly, they have committees in over 50 countries around the globe. This website, compared to Democrats Abroad, is hard to navigate and does not focus on events abroad as clearly. It does, however, serve its purpose - to aid U.S. citizens abroad.
Looks like the overseas vote will make a bigger impact in this election than ever before...that is, if the ballots make it in time. Democrats Abroad and Republicans Abroad are both making incredible impacts abroad - 6 million of our citizens can now easily get their vote in.
Who do other countries favor in the election?
Obama by a landslide. Is there something to be said about the Democrats Abroad campaign? Fox News Online reports on a Reader's Digest global poll of the candidates. 17,000 people in 17 countries, including the U.S., were asked which candidate they favored. 16 out of 17 countries preferred Obama - except the U.S. Obama is a self-proclaimed "citizen of the world." Counties such as the Netherlands, Germany, Brazil and Taiwan are his biggest fans. Reader's Digest also reports that most countries gave off pro-American sentiments. However, the Netherlands, Spain, Indonesia and Canada were among some with anti-American remarks.
It doesn't help that McCain and Bush are linked together as far as international opinion. People don't like Bush and don't want to see a repeat of his term. But what about McCain's foreign policy? He is being praised for it in the U.S. - does it matter if his knowledge doesn't translate? In an interview with Fox News, Carl Cannon of Reader's Digest Washington Bureau stated "The Republican Party is not organized around the notion of running for election anywhere but the United States. A number of Republican issues, such as defending the Second Amendment or opposition to abortion, simply are not salient questions in Europe."
So, with Obama as the international favorite and 6 million more people with a chance to get their vote in...who will it be come election day?
The Power of Parody
I think it goes without saying that shows such as The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, The Colbert Report and Saturday Night Live have hit the jackpot this season because of the overwhelmingly large about of material they have to work with in regards to the 2008 campaigns and elections. Parody shows such as these started out with a fan base that is able to laugh at the small stuff and not take things too seriously. Now this genre has escalated in credibility and people report that these are legitimate sources they get their news from. What has happened too boost the credit and fan populations of these shows?
Parody is a powerful tool that challenges the audience to examine the true ridiculousness of political situations. Jon Stewart, Stephan Colbert, Tina Fay and many others have used humor and newances to report news and they have succeeded. I try to watch as much parody news as possible because it is not only humorous but it exemplifies a type of honesty that network and cable news stations avoid. Parody, I believe has a huge roll in this year's election. The issues that The Daily Show, The Colbert report and SNL discuss might not necessarily sway people to change their vote but it definitely possesses the power to continually reinforce what people already believe about our candidate's. For example, this past weekend on Saturday Night Live, Tina Fey made her third appearances as Vice Presidential Candidate Gov. Sarah Palin. The opening skit was a mock up of the VP debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin. The hilarious impersonations of Biden and Palin were spot on. While the skit made fun of both candidate's and exaggerated their imperfections as candidate's I couldn't help but realize that I pay more attention to the jokes poked at Palin than I did Biden because I don't support Palin. This realization made me concluded that the true power and goal of parody is not to change voters mind's about a certain person but to bring to light the inconsistencies of every political candidate. The ironic thing is that people only see what they want to see. I choice to ignore the attacks on Obama and Biden because I support them but I pay attention to the mockings of Plain and McCain and those narratives produced throguh parody help me reinforce why I don't support McCain or Palin.
The reason I enjoy parody so much and believe it is unlike any other news source out there is because it connects our society's obsession with "gotcha journalism", flip-flopping politicians, dirty campaigns, and 24/7 news networks too pop culture references that leave the viewer cracking up because you finally see the ridiculousness of it all. A perfect example is Jon Stewart's dialogue of Biden Palin debate. He discusses all the hype about the news networks and analysts predictions of expectations for Palin's performance during the debate. Stewart's sarcastic response to the exaggerated or under exaggerated expectations of Palin challenges the viewer to think about the dialogue that's occurring between news networks pundents. His humor and the power of parody tell the audience don't get sucked into the media's jargon and rhetoric by thinking everything they discuss is newsworthy and worth analysis.
Parody is a powerful tool that challenges the audience to examine the true ridiculousness of political situations. Jon Stewart, Stephan Colbert, Tina Fay and many others have used humor and newances to report news and they have succeeded. I try to watch as much parody news as possible because it is not only humorous but it exemplifies a type of honesty that network and cable news stations avoid. Parody, I believe has a huge roll in this year's election. The issues that The Daily Show, The Colbert report and SNL discuss might not necessarily sway people to change their vote but it definitely possesses the power to continually reinforce what people already believe about our candidate's. For example, this past weekend on Saturday Night Live, Tina Fey made her third appearances as Vice Presidential Candidate Gov. Sarah Palin. The opening skit was a mock up of the VP debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin. The hilarious impersonations of Biden and Palin were spot on. While the skit made fun of both candidate's and exaggerated their imperfections as candidate's I couldn't help but realize that I pay more attention to the jokes poked at Palin than I did Biden because I don't support Palin. This realization made me concluded that the true power and goal of parody is not to change voters mind's about a certain person but to bring to light the inconsistencies of every political candidate. The ironic thing is that people only see what they want to see. I choice to ignore the attacks on Obama and Biden because I support them but I pay attention to the mockings of Plain and McCain and those narratives produced throguh parody help me reinforce why I don't support McCain or Palin.
The reason I enjoy parody so much and believe it is unlike any other news source out there is because it connects our society's obsession with "gotcha journalism", flip-flopping politicians, dirty campaigns, and 24/7 news networks too pop culture references that leave the viewer cracking up because you finally see the ridiculousness of it all. A perfect example is Jon Stewart's dialogue of Biden Palin debate. He discusses all the hype about the news networks and analysts predictions of expectations for Palin's performance during the debate. Stewart's sarcastic response to the exaggerated or under exaggerated expectations of Palin challenges the viewer to think about the dialogue that's occurring between news networks pundents. His humor and the power of parody tell the audience don't get sucked into the media's jargon and rhetoric by thinking everything they discuss is newsworthy and worth analysis.
Campaign Ads No Longer Have As Far a Reach to Grab Voters Attention
As I write this post, the tool bar on my computer screen displays 6 minimized webpages varying from Politico.com to MSNBC’s The Note. Behind my head I can hear Campbell Brown discuss tonight’s current topic on CNN. My email account dings, alerting me that I have just received a new email. This is the media driven world that I live in along with the rest of the population in the US. We are constantly receiving messages and updates about the world around us.
Once Upon A Time…
At one time voters received the majority of their information about Presidential Candidates from the television and print media. These outlets of communication were common places that voters also came into contact with these political campaign’s advertisements. These ads usually presented the various candidates stances on issues, medical plans, credentials, etc. These ads were usually very expensive investments made by the candidates’ campaigns and their primary purpose was to inform voters as well as persuade them to go out and vote for the candidate.
Crackberries, Computers, and Wireless-Internet Oh My…
Times have changed. The way voters receive media has become much more complex. With all of the technological advancements in cell phones and the internet, people become informed faster and easier than ever before. Peter Greenberger of Google confirms that times have changed and shares that compared to just a couple of years ago, society is “spending more and more time online…as much time online as they do watching TV.” This change in media consumption is not only in effect through the use of computers either. Today’s cell phones link to the internet in a matter of seconds and people have the resources to be updated constantly. Jonathan Martin of Politico.com also confirms that times have changed stating that “Americans no longer get their news on politics or anything else from three network newscasts and their local paper.” The internet has fully infiltrated the realm of mainstream media.
Out With the Old and In With the New:
There are many new ways to grab voters’ attention and gain support with so much access to the internet. Three new ways to grab voters’ attention that have been used in this Presidential Election season in particular are discussed in articles from National Journal.com and Poltico.com. The new use of old concepts such as “contextual advertising,” “online behavioral targeting,” and video ads, in this year’s Presidential campaign has been shaking up the traditional form of campaign advertising.
Contextual Advertising
If a person were reading a column online from their local paper about health care, they might see an advertisement for John McCain’s health care plan within the article. According to Greenberger of Google this is one-hundred percent possible if a candidate, such as John McCain, wanted to “invest a little bit of their ad budgets online to reach voters.” Greenberger is talking about the strides that Google has recently taken to help candidates “pioneer ways to target voters more specifically than ever before.” Also, according to the head of this team from Google, this new form of advertising for candidates could present issues through these ads to voters who are interested in reading more.
Online Behavioral Targeting Technology
Another new advertising tool being used during this election on the internet it “online behavioral targeting technology.” David Herbert of National Journal Online shares that “sites using the technology put a small file known as a cookie onto every visitor’s Web browser” this cookie makes it possible for campaigns to know everywhere the visitor of the site goes on the internet after they leave the initial site they received the cookie from. This tool provides information to the campaigns about “the issues they [the visitor] care about,” making it easier for the campaigns to reach voters. Herbert quotes Thomas Gensemer, a managing partner of Blue State Digital, in his article. Gensemer’s technology firm is “running behavioral targeting programs for the Obama campaign” reports Herbert.
Video Advertisements and YouTube
This year’s Presidential Election has turned it major party candidates into celebrities as all Elections do. However, campaign and media ads featuring stars such as Paris Hilton and Britney Spears may have people wondering exactly how close to stardom these candidates are. New ads are being circulated almost every other day but Martin reports, Evan Tracey, the head of the ad tracking Campaign Media Analysis Group, states that in one day people see the same couple ads many times. Tracey says “the very ads that have been shaping much of the recent campaign coverage…Never ran on TV.” Tracey also says that these ads that have been receiving all the coverage were made by the campaigns themselves because of the little effort and price that they take if any to produce. Martin also quotes Chris Lehane, who was a top aide on Al Gore’s 2000 campaign, who said, “there is such comprehensive media environment between the traditional media and online media that these pieces get picked up and end up impacting the daily news cycle.” All of our media outlets feed into one another and campaigns are taking advantage of this. Martin says that people today are getting their media everywhere and the campaigns are simply adapting to the advancement by providing information anywhere that will “get their preferred narrative across.”
And They All Lived Happily Ever After…Except
All of the new ways that these candidates advertisements are finding their way into to lives of voters may seem all well and good, but the candidates better be careful not to bite the hand that feeds them. All of the immediate and convenient access that society has to technology such as the internet and cell phones could always backfire for the candidates. This has been seen on a number of occasions, but cell phones easily record video and take pictures making public appearances for candidates extremely risky. A slip up by a candidate can be quickly recorded and posted to the internet before the campaign knows what hit it. Jon Meyersohn of ABCNews.com writes about how online videos have affected politicians. Particularly John Kerry, the Democratic nominee in 2006, knows the effects of quickly and discretely filmed videos. Meyersohn wrote that Kerry was trying “to tell a joke about the President in Iraq, he blew the punch line.” Not long after Kerry dealt with “criticism, even from Democrats who worried Kerry might hurt their chances in the close election.” The criticism stemmed from the video of the foot in mouth incident that was leaked to the media.
“Campaign Ad Tracker”
As part of their 2008 campaign coverage, USAToday.com has a “Campaign ad tracker” check it out for more about The 2008 Election’s campaign ads!
Once Upon A Time…
At one time voters received the majority of their information about Presidential Candidates from the television and print media. These outlets of communication were common places that voters also came into contact with these political campaign’s advertisements. These ads usually presented the various candidates stances on issues, medical plans, credentials, etc. These ads were usually very expensive investments made by the candidates’ campaigns and their primary purpose was to inform voters as well as persuade them to go out and vote for the candidate.
Crackberries, Computers, and Wireless-Internet Oh My…
Times have changed. The way voters receive media has become much more complex. With all of the technological advancements in cell phones and the internet, people become informed faster and easier than ever before. Peter Greenberger of Google confirms that times have changed and shares that compared to just a couple of years ago, society is “spending more and more time online…as much time online as they do watching TV.” This change in media consumption is not only in effect through the use of computers either. Today’s cell phones link to the internet in a matter of seconds and people have the resources to be updated constantly. Jonathan Martin of Politico.com also confirms that times have changed stating that “Americans no longer get their news on politics or anything else from three network newscasts and their local paper.” The internet has fully infiltrated the realm of mainstream media.
Out With the Old and In With the New:
There are many new ways to grab voters’ attention and gain support with so much access to the internet. Three new ways to grab voters’ attention that have been used in this Presidential Election season in particular are discussed in articles from National Journal.com and Poltico.com. The new use of old concepts such as “contextual advertising,” “online behavioral targeting,” and video ads, in this year’s Presidential campaign has been shaking up the traditional form of campaign advertising.
Contextual Advertising
If a person were reading a column online from their local paper about health care, they might see an advertisement for John McCain’s health care plan within the article. According to Greenberger of Google this is one-hundred percent possible if a candidate, such as John McCain, wanted to “invest a little bit of their ad budgets online to reach voters.” Greenberger is talking about the strides that Google has recently taken to help candidates “pioneer ways to target voters more specifically than ever before.” Also, according to the head of this team from Google, this new form of advertising for candidates could present issues through these ads to voters who are interested in reading more.
Online Behavioral Targeting Technology
Another new advertising tool being used during this election on the internet it “online behavioral targeting technology.” David Herbert of National Journal Online shares that “sites using the technology put a small file known as a cookie onto every visitor’s Web browser” this cookie makes it possible for campaigns to know everywhere the visitor of the site goes on the internet after they leave the initial site they received the cookie from. This tool provides information to the campaigns about “the issues they [the visitor] care about,” making it easier for the campaigns to reach voters. Herbert quotes Thomas Gensemer, a managing partner of Blue State Digital, in his article. Gensemer’s technology firm is “running behavioral targeting programs for the Obama campaign” reports Herbert.
Video Advertisements and YouTube
This year’s Presidential Election has turned it major party candidates into celebrities as all Elections do. However, campaign and media ads featuring stars such as Paris Hilton and Britney Spears may have people wondering exactly how close to stardom these candidates are. New ads are being circulated almost every other day but Martin reports, Evan Tracey, the head of the ad tracking Campaign Media Analysis Group, states that in one day people see the same couple ads many times. Tracey says “the very ads that have been shaping much of the recent campaign coverage…Never ran on TV.” Tracey also says that these ads that have been receiving all the coverage were made by the campaigns themselves because of the little effort and price that they take if any to produce. Martin also quotes Chris Lehane, who was a top aide on Al Gore’s 2000 campaign, who said, “there is such comprehensive media environment between the traditional media and online media that these pieces get picked up and end up impacting the daily news cycle.” All of our media outlets feed into one another and campaigns are taking advantage of this. Martin says that people today are getting their media everywhere and the campaigns are simply adapting to the advancement by providing information anywhere that will “get their preferred narrative across.”
And They All Lived Happily Ever After…Except
All of the new ways that these candidates advertisements are finding their way into to lives of voters may seem all well and good, but the candidates better be careful not to bite the hand that feeds them. All of the immediate and convenient access that society has to technology such as the internet and cell phones could always backfire for the candidates. This has been seen on a number of occasions, but cell phones easily record video and take pictures making public appearances for candidates extremely risky. A slip up by a candidate can be quickly recorded and posted to the internet before the campaign knows what hit it. Jon Meyersohn of ABCNews.com writes about how online videos have affected politicians. Particularly John Kerry, the Democratic nominee in 2006, knows the effects of quickly and discretely filmed videos. Meyersohn wrote that Kerry was trying “to tell a joke about the President in Iraq, he blew the punch line.” Not long after Kerry dealt with “criticism, even from Democrats who worried Kerry might hurt their chances in the close election.” The criticism stemmed from the video of the foot in mouth incident that was leaked to the media.
“Campaign Ad Tracker”
As part of their 2008 campaign coverage, USAToday.com has a “Campaign ad tracker” check it out for more about The 2008 Election’s campaign ads!
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Cindy v. Michelle: A Look at the Role these Women are Playing in the Presidental Campaign
There is no denying that today’s presidential campaigns examine every aspect of a candidate’s life. This includes the candidates’ families, especially their wives, America’s potential first ladies. The question is, in the 2008 election year, how are these wives shaping up and how are they being utilized by the presidential campaigns?
From appearing on the cover of magazines to making fundraiser and campaign appearances, potential first ladies have their work cut out for them from the day their husbands decide to run for office. In the 2008 election year, Michelle Obama and Cindy McCain are in the public eye more so than ever. Both the media and the campaigns are constantly contorting and defining the images of these women.
Michelle Obama has been the center of much attention since her relatively unknown husband
gave the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Ever since that day, as Barack Obama has grown in notoriety, so has his wife. Not only does Michelle support her husband, but she has become a centerpiece in his campaign, making many public appearances on her own in order to bolster support for her husband. This attention has made Michelle a somewhat controversial figure in the public eye. She has been portrayed in the media as everything from the second coming of Jackie O to an angry black woman determined to play the minority card at any cost. However, Michelle candidly told Inglewood Today, "Barack and I have been in the public eye for many years now, and we've developed a thick skin along the way. When you're out campaigning, there will always be criticism. I just take it in stride, and at the end of the day, I know that it comes with the territory."
In contrast, Cindy McCain has played a more subdued role in her husband’s campaign. Some have even deemed Cindy as a “mysterious” figure who hides behind her husband. In response, the National Public Radio quoted the potential first lady from an interview with ABC’s Good Morning America as saying, "I don't think I'm very mysterious. I'm not the candidate. I've never been front and center. I do the things I enjoy and that are important to me. And [I] do them in the way I like to do them." She was also quoted by NPR as reminding NBC’s Ann Curry of the fact that “My husband is the candidate. I'm not the candidate." This reserved persona that Cindy presents to the media has been viewed as cold by many, but it is possible she has learned that being in the public eye is not always the best place for a candidate’s family.
Despite her reservations, Cindy is filled with plenty of warm, supportive words when it comes to her husband, a trait that Michelle holds as well. In speaking of John McCain, the Wall Street Journal quotes Cindy as saying, "It's going to take someone of unusual strength and character -- someone exactly like my husband -- to lead us through the reefs and currents that lie ahead. I know John. You can trust his hand at the wheel." Her support is unwavering, and when asked about her husband, she is always ready to offer a kind word. Similarly, Michelle makes a point to show that she and her husband are united in the support of change. Florida’s Local 6 News reports, "You know, Barack and I agree on everything that matters," Obama said. "At the foundation of Barack's campaign is the notion that we need to build an America that is just and is equal and that gives every American a real opportunity for a better chance at life."
While both women offer support to their husbands and to the campaigns, both Cindy and Michelle acknowledge that they are not afraid to offer their opinions when it matters. Contrasting Cindy’s perceived distance from her husband’s campaign, Cannon Connections reports that “Campaign advisers describe her as an avid participant in strategy sessions, speaking up if she disagrees. When the campaign was running aground and hemorrhaging money last summer, she went to her husband and expressed her concerns. Not long after, John McCain parted ways with his campaign manager and his longtime strategist, a decision she said was his alone.” This report helps support the fact that Cindy is involved in some aspects of the McCain campaign just as Michelle is involved in the Obama campaign. For Michelle, bringing a strong female presence to the White House seems to be a top priority. She also likes to capitalize on the fact that she and her husband have overcome many obstacles, especially their race, in order to be where they are today. In an interview with TIME Magazine Michelle says, "When you're a person like me, who steps outside the normal boundaries of what their life is supposed to be like — say, going to Princeton — you're worried that maybe you're not prepared, because everybody has told you you probably won't be, and then you get there and you're like, I'm prepared,” laughing, "I think many of us are more prepared for certain situations than we imagine.”
So how would these women act as first ladies? Cindy has been quoted by Cannon Connections as saying, “I would continue doing exactly what I’m doing. Nothing would change. I would just probably do more of it, which would be great.” This means that Cindy would continue to maintain her privacy and invest most of her free time into the philanthropic work in which she so often participates. In contrast, NPR reports Michelle as saying, "If there's one thing that I've seen out there, as I've traveled around the country over this last year, is that women need an advocate in the White House now more than ever before.” It is clear that if Obama is in the White House, his wife will remain a vital, central part of his everyday operations. Despite these intentions, a “Newsweek poll found that voters thought Obama would make a better First Lady than McCain by a 31% to 25% margin” (NY Times Daily News). Could these results be due to the media’s ability to set the political agenda of the public sphere?
Communication specialists maintain that the media does not tell us what to think, but what to think about. In line with this theory, it can be assumed that the woman who receives the most media attention will be more likely to be a dominant figure in whom the public shows interest. This heightened level of attention could potentially lead to a heightened level of acceptance, especially when the media refers to Cindy McCain as "… as the blond standing alongside her gregarious husband, lips fixed in a practiced smile, ice-blue eyes serene and adoring, but inscrutable," and Michelle Obama as “… tall, smart, funny, relaxed and basically so glowy and poised — if she's attractive in pictures, she's flat-out gorgeous in person — that it almost seems as if she already is the First Lady” (NY Daily News and TIME Magazine). It is obvious that Michelle has been far more present in the media than Cindy. While the latter has only appeared on the cover of Newsweek Magazine, the former has appeared on the covers of Newsweek, US Magazine, Ebony, TIME, and OK! Magazine, just to name a few. This match-up is comparable to their public appearances as well.
It will be interesting to see how Cindy and Michelle affect their husband’s campaigns overall. As of now, it seems that Cindy’s subdued role is paying off far less than that of Michelle’s front and center role in the Obama campaign. With election day approaching fast, will Cindy come out from behind her husband’s shadow in an effort to bolster support, or will she continue on in the same way she has throughout the campaign? Similarly, will Michelle tone down her ways before election day or continue to remain at the forefront of her husband’s campaign despite sometimes controversial media attention? Only time will answer these pressing questions but there is no doubt that no matter what the role, presidential candidate’s wives are playing a substantial part in this election cycle.
From appearing on the cover of magazines to making fundraiser and campaign appearances, potential first ladies have their work cut out for them from the day their husbands decide to run for office. In the 2008 election year, Michelle Obama and Cindy McCain are in the public eye more so than ever. Both the media and the campaigns are constantly contorting and defining the images of these women.
Michelle Obama has been the center of much attention since her relatively unknown husband
gave the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Ever since that day, as Barack Obama has grown in notoriety, so has his wife. Not only does Michelle support her husband, but she has become a centerpiece in his campaign, making many public appearances on her own in order to bolster support for her husband. This attention has made Michelle a somewhat controversial figure in the public eye. She has been portrayed in the media as everything from the second coming of Jackie O to an angry black woman determined to play the minority card at any cost. However, Michelle candidly told Inglewood Today, "Barack and I have been in the public eye for many years now, and we've developed a thick skin along the way. When you're out campaigning, there will always be criticism. I just take it in stride, and at the end of the day, I know that it comes with the territory."
In contrast, Cindy McCain has played a more subdued role in her husband’s campaign. Some have even deemed Cindy as a “mysterious” figure who hides behind her husband. In response, the National Public Radio quoted the potential first lady from an interview with ABC’s Good Morning America as saying, "I don't think I'm very mysterious. I'm not the candidate. I've never been front and center. I do the things I enjoy and that are important to me. And [I] do them in the way I like to do them." She was also quoted by NPR as reminding NBC’s Ann Curry of the fact that “My husband is the candidate. I'm not the candidate." This reserved persona that Cindy presents to the media has been viewed as cold by many, but it is possible she has learned that being in the public eye is not always the best place for a candidate’s family.Despite her reservations, Cindy is filled with plenty of warm, supportive words when it comes to her husband, a trait that Michelle holds as well. In speaking of John McCain, the Wall Street Journal quotes Cindy as saying, "It's going to take someone of unusual strength and character -- someone exactly like my husband -- to lead us through the reefs and currents that lie ahead. I know John. You can trust his hand at the wheel." Her support is unwavering, and when asked about her husband, she is always ready to offer a kind word. Similarly, Michelle makes a point to show that she and her husband are united in the support of change. Florida’s Local 6 News reports, "You know, Barack and I agree on everything that matters," Obama said. "At the foundation of Barack's campaign is the notion that we need to build an America that is just and is equal and that gives every American a real opportunity for a better chance at life."
While both women offer support to their husbands and to the campaigns, both Cindy and Michelle acknowledge that they are not afraid to offer their opinions when it matters. Contrasting Cindy’s perceived distance from her husband’s campaign, Cannon Connections reports that “Campaign advisers describe her as an avid participant in strategy sessions, speaking up if she disagrees. When the campaign was running aground and hemorrhaging money last summer, she went to her husband and expressed her concerns. Not long after, John McCain parted ways with his campaign manager and his longtime strategist, a decision she said was his alone.” This report helps support the fact that Cindy is involved in some aspects of the McCain campaign just as Michelle is involved in the Obama campaign. For Michelle, bringing a strong female presence to the White House seems to be a top priority. She also likes to capitalize on the fact that she and her husband have overcome many obstacles, especially their race, in order to be where they are today. In an interview with TIME Magazine Michelle says, "When you're a person like me, who steps outside the normal boundaries of what their life is supposed to be like — say, going to Princeton — you're worried that maybe you're not prepared, because everybody has told you you probably won't be, and then you get there and you're like, I'm prepared,” laughing, "I think many of us are more prepared for certain situations than we imagine.”
So how would these women act as first ladies? Cindy has been quoted by Cannon Connections as saying, “I would continue doing exactly what I’m doing. Nothing would change. I would just probably do more of it, which would be great.” This means that Cindy would continue to maintain her privacy and invest most of her free time into the philanthropic work in which she so often participates. In contrast, NPR reports Michelle as saying, "If there's one thing that I've seen out there, as I've traveled around the country over this last year, is that women need an advocate in the White House now more than ever before.” It is clear that if Obama is in the White House, his wife will remain a vital, central part of his everyday operations. Despite these intentions, a “Newsweek poll found that voters thought Obama would make a better First Lady than McCain by a 31% to 25% margin” (NY Times Daily News). Could these results be due to the media’s ability to set the political agenda of the public sphere?
Communication specialists maintain that the media does not tell us what to think, but what to think about. In line with this theory, it can be assumed that the woman who receives the most media attention will be more likely to be a dominant figure in whom the public shows interest. This heightened level of attention could potentially lead to a heightened level of acceptance, especially when the media refers to Cindy McCain as "… as the blond standing alongside her gregarious husband, lips fixed in a practiced smile, ice-blue eyes serene and adoring, but inscrutable," and Michelle Obama as “… tall, smart, funny, relaxed and basically so glowy and poised — if she's attractive in pictures, she's flat-out gorgeous in person — that it almost seems as if she already is the First Lady” (NY Daily News and TIME Magazine). It is obvious that Michelle has been far more present in the media than Cindy. While the latter has only appeared on the cover of Newsweek Magazine, the former has appeared on the covers of Newsweek, US Magazine, Ebony, TIME, and OK! Magazine, just to name a few. This match-up is comparable to their public appearances as well.
It will be interesting to see how Cindy and Michelle affect their husband’s campaigns overall. As of now, it seems that Cindy’s subdued role is paying off far less than that of Michelle’s front and center role in the Obama campaign. With election day approaching fast, will Cindy come out from behind her husband’s shadow in an effort to bolster support, or will she continue on in the same way she has throughout the campaign? Similarly, will Michelle tone down her ways before election day or continue to remain at the forefront of her husband’s campaign despite sometimes controversial media attention? Only time will answer these pressing questions but there is no doubt that no matter what the role, presidential candidate’s wives are playing a substantial part in this election cycle.
Electoral Tie?
What happens if this election ends up in an electoral tie?
Yes, it is possible.
There are several ways in which a 269-269 tie is possible, one which is very possible. There are currently 10 tossup states, according to RealClearPolitics.com, which keeps a running average of all state polls. If Republican presidential nominee John McCain wins Ohio, Virginia, New Hampshire and Indiana - not at all far-fetched - and Mr. Obama takes reliably Democratic states Pennsylvania and Michigan, and flips Colorado (in which he holds a slight poll lead), with the two splitting New Mexico and Nevada, the electoral vote would be tied at 269.
Another possibility: If McCain wins Virginia, New Hampshire, Florida and Ohio but loses Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Mexico and Iowa to O
bama, both candidates could end up with 269 electoral votes.
According to the Constitution’s 12th Amendment, if the electoral vote is tied, the election should be thrown into the newly elected House. Regardless of population, each state would have one vote. The Democrats have 27 state congressional delegations, while the Republicans have 21. A candidate must get the votes of 26 states to be elected president. Otherwise, the Senate-elected vice president would act as president until the House could agree. In order to win the Presidency, a candidate must receive the votes of an outright majority of 26 state delegations. This is more difficult than you might think, because delegations with an even number of members can be split, and a couple probably will be -- right now Arizona has four Republican representatives and four Democratic ones, for instance.
David Wasserman, the House editor of The Cook Political Report, concludes that in the situation of a tie, it might not be easy to reach 26 votes, given that a lot of Democrats serve districts with a long history of supporting the Republican presidential nominee. For example, will at-large Democratic representatives, North Dakota’s Earl Pomeroy and South Dakota’s Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, vote with their electorate or their party?
"Some members could feel pressure to vote for the other party's candidate if he carried their state or district or if he won a clear margin of the national popular vote," said Northwestern University law professor Robert Bennett.
There is no way to anticipate how members would weigh considerations such as the outcome of their state's vote or the national popular vote. But it may be harder for Obama to win the House than it sounds. For one thing, four of the toss-up states in this scenario have even-numbered House delegations, meaning that intra-delegation deadlocks could reduce the number of states available to reach 26.
National Journal offers some more in-depth information on this topic.
So what happens if the House can’t come to a decision?
Here is one scenario: The House is unable to choose a president but the Senate, which is expected to be controlled by the democrats, picks Senator Joe Biden from the Democratic ticket. If the House still hasn’t come to a decision by noon on Inauguration Day, January 20, Biden will become acting president.
Another scenario:Neither the House nor the Senate is able to pick the president or vice president by January 20, so House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a democrat, becomes acting president until a decision can be made.
A third scenario, and possibly the craziest of them all: The House picks Obama as president, but the Senate, with former Democrat Joe Lieberman voting with Republicans, deadlocks at 50-50, so Vice President Dick Cheney steps in to break the tie to make Palin vice president.
One last scenario: The Democratic-controlled chamber could pick Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden even if McCain wins the House vote.
Reuters offers more on these scenarios.
According to the Washington Times, with the current House, Obama would win. However, the numbers in the House will change on November 4, and obviously we don’t know yet how they are going to change.
We wont know until November 5 if this is something we even have to worry about. But if it is, it could end up a huge disaster! With Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate fighting, we could end up without a president for a long time and whatever decisions are made will probably end up in the courts.
Yes, it is possible.
There are several ways in which a 269-269 tie is possible, one which is very possible. There are currently 10 tossup states, according to RealClearPolitics.com, which keeps a running average of all state polls. If Republican presidential nominee John McCain wins Ohio, Virginia, New Hampshire and Indiana - not at all far-fetched - and Mr. Obama takes reliably Democratic states Pennsylvania and Michigan, and flips Colorado (in which he holds a slight poll lead), with the two splitting New Mexico and Nevada, the electoral vote would be tied at 269.
Another possibility: If McCain wins Virginia, New Hampshire, Florida and Ohio but loses Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Mexico and Iowa to O
bama, both candidates could end up with 269 electoral votes.According to the Constitution’s 12th Amendment, if the electoral vote is tied, the election should be thrown into the newly elected House. Regardless of population, each state would have one vote. The Democrats have 27 state congressional delegations, while the Republicans have 21. A candidate must get the votes of 26 states to be elected president. Otherwise, the Senate-elected vice president would act as president until the House could agree. In order to win the Presidency, a candidate must receive the votes of an outright majority of 26 state delegations. This is more difficult than you might think, because delegations with an even number of members can be split, and a couple probably will be -- right now Arizona has four Republican representatives and four Democratic ones, for instance.
David Wasserman, the House editor of The Cook Political Report, concludes that in the situation of a tie, it might not be easy to reach 26 votes, given that a lot of Democrats serve districts with a long history of supporting the Republican presidential nominee. For example, will at-large Democratic representatives, North Dakota’s Earl Pomeroy and South Dakota’s Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, vote with their electorate or their party?
"Some members could feel pressure to vote for the other party's candidate if he carried their state or district or if he won a clear margin of the national popular vote," said Northwestern University law professor Robert Bennett.
There is no way to anticipate how members would weigh considerations such as the outcome of their state's vote or the national popular vote. But it may be harder for Obama to win the House than it sounds. For one thing, four of the toss-up states in this scenario have even-numbered House delegations, meaning that intra-delegation deadlocks could reduce the number of states available to reach 26.
National Journal offers some more in-depth information on this topic.
So what happens if the House can’t come to a decision?
Here is one scenario: The House is unable to choose a president but the Senate, which is expected to be controlled by the democrats, picks Senator Joe Biden from the Democratic ticket. If the House still hasn’t come to a decision by noon on Inauguration Day, January 20, Biden will become acting president.
Another scenario:Neither the House nor the Senate is able to pick the president or vice president by January 20, so House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a democrat, becomes acting president until a decision can be made.
A third scenario, and possibly the craziest of them all: The House picks Obama as president, but the Senate, with former Democrat Joe Lieberman voting with Republicans, deadlocks at 50-50, so Vice President Dick Cheney steps in to break the tie to make Palin vice president.
One last scenario: The Democratic-controlled chamber could pick Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden even if McCain wins the House vote.
Reuters offers more on these scenarios.
According to the Washington Times, with the current House, Obama would win. However, the numbers in the House will change on November 4, and obviously we don’t know yet how they are going to change.
We wont know until November 5 if this is something we even have to worry about. But if it is, it could end up a huge disaster! With Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate fighting, we could end up without a president for a long time and whatever decisions are made will probably end up in the courts.
McCain and the "Keating Five"
As economics became overwhelmingly important in the first presidential debate, it has also become grounds for negative campaigning on both sides. According to an Exclusive by Politico, the Obama campaign will be sending an email out overnight encouraging people to watch a 13 minute documentary on KeatingEconomics.com. This documentary shows McCain's involvement with the "Keating Five" savings and loan scandal that occurred at the end of the 1980s and early 1990s. Obama's campaign is using this multimedia attack in response comments made from McCain's side in their attempt to link Obama with the current economic crisis.
Foreign campaign contributions for Obama
Today the Washington Postreported the RNC's claims that the Obama campaign is taking foreign contributions, something they are having the Federal Elections Committee (FEC) look into. With the difficulty of tracking internet contributions and the ordering of campaign materials on the web, the Obama campaign has had to return money to people in foreign countries already.
The $200 million in question right now is seen by the RNC as "suspicious, and possibly even illegal foreign donors". The Obama camp has already said they will be making changes to ensure that internet fraud does not exist, although it is very difficult to regulate. The Obama campaign will now not accept campaign contributions to the Obama Store without an address inside the US and they will also be checking passports at campaign fundraisers outside of the US for Americans who are abroad. Their additional precautionary measure will be to require US passport numbers when people choose to make contributions on the Americans Abroad page. These allegations and measures that have been taken show how much of an impact the internet can make on ensuring campaign contribution rules are being followed.
The $200 million in question right now is seen by the RNC as "suspicious, and possibly even illegal foreign donors". The Obama camp has already said they will be making changes to ensure that internet fraud does not exist, although it is very difficult to regulate. The Obama campaign will now not accept campaign contributions to the Obama Store without an address inside the US and they will also be checking passports at campaign fundraisers outside of the US for Americans who are abroad. Their additional precautionary measure will be to require US passport numbers when people choose to make contributions on the Americans Abroad page. These allegations and measures that have been taken show how much of an impact the internet can make on ensuring campaign contribution rules are being followed.
Hark! The Campaign Ads Sing
A critical look at the most recent campaign ads
Amidst the debates and the fundraisers and the town halls are the all-important political ads. This year, the presidential campaigns are turning out new ads each day addressing issues, promoting messages, and, of course, attacking the other candidate. So what are the candidates saying about each other this election, and more importantly, is it truthful? Both campaigns have released ads since the vice presidential debates that cite or reference accusations made during the break. What is the main issue being addressed in these ads you ask? Taxation.
The McCain camp released an ad on Friday that attacked Barack Obama's claims of being a "tax cutter". The ad, which runs for 30 seconds, with a national ad buy, reiterated Sarah Palin's statement from Thursday night's VP debate saying, "Barack had 94 opportunities to side on the people's side and reduce taxes, and 94 times he voted to increase taxes or not support a tax reduction -- 94 times." During the debate, Biden responded by saying that, "the charge is absolutely not true. Barack Obama did not vote to raise taxes. The vote she's referring to, John McCain voted the exact same way. It was a budget procedural vote. John McCain voted the same way. It did not raise taxes. Number two, using the standard that the governor uses, John McCain voted 477 times to raise taxes." Regardless of this argument against Governor Palin's claim, the McCain camp released the ad calling into question Obama's self proclaimed "tax cutter" status. To view the "tax cutter" ad click here.
The Obama camp retorted with an ad of its own, entitled "Can't Explain" , that criticized McCain's health plan by featuring clips from the VP debate including Governor Palin's description of McCain's plans to alter the healthcare system, and Senator Biden's words: "Taxing your health care benefit, I call that the ultimate 'Bridge to Nowhere.'' Biden's undisguised crack referred to Sarah Palin's one-time support of the Gravina Island Bridge, now notoriously called the "Bridge to Nowhere". McCain's health care plan would give families a $5000 tax credit for their health care while simultaneously taxing employer health plans. The Dems are using Biden's witty retort that drew laughs from debate audiences to try and reassure voters that the democratic ticket knows how to fix the country. To watch "Can't Explain" click here.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Every voter for him/herself
Voter caging is form of blocking voters by compiling entire lists of individuals who will be challenged at the polls based on some criteria like foreclosed homes or student resident addresses. This is what the Republicans in Michigan and the registrars in Virginia have been accused of doing.
In Michigan, in recent weeks, the Republican Party has faced accusations of voter suppression because of a plan to use a list of foreclosed houses to block former residents of those homes from voting. The Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee filed a lawsuit against the Michigan GOP, largely based on an article published in the Michigan Messenger, the veracity of which has been challenged by Republicans.
More recently, the Ohio Supreme Court has upheld a new feature of Ohio Early Voting. This year, there is a weeklong period when people can register and cast an absentee ballot on the same day. It is the first year that people can vote absentee and early without meeting a requirement. This is cited as a way to avoid a situation similar to that of 2004, when Democrats accused the state of voter disenfranchisement in African American neighborhoods where voters waited for hours to vote. The new Ohio rule was challenged by Republicans and taken to court, but upheld by a Republican dominated state Supreme Court. The Ohio GOP had argued that state law requires voters to be registered 30 days before casting an absentee ballot, but Democratic Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner, made the argument that the new rule supports basic voting rights and makes voting more accessible to more people. Advocates of early voting are working to get students and homeless, people who generally struggle to get to the polls, to take advantage of the early voting widow. The Ohio Republican Party used this to frame Brunner’s activism on the behalf of voters as a partisan effort. But now the Republicans face charges that they were trying to suppress votes in Ohio, a swing state that played a vital role in Bush’s victory in 2004.
Students' Issues
Outside of these presidential battleground states (although Michigan’s status has changed somewhat since McCain pulled his campaign Thursday), students have faced voting rights difficulties as well. In college towns across the U.S., the student vote has the impetus to change local politics. In February 2008 in Waller County, Texas, students at Prairie View A&M University marched for their right to vote after early voting locations near the Historically Black University were removed. The student protest for their rights might be a little outdated now, but others are dealing with similar problems.
Last week, students at Virginia Tech, many newly registered through huge voter registration drives, received word that registering in Blacksburg could have negative consequences. The local registrar of elections communicated that students who registered at their school address could lose residency-based scholarships and face tax problems, although the Supreme Court allows students to register where they go to college. The registrar was accused of trying to blocks student voting in the Virginia town, and the State Board of Elections had to intervene. They clarified that a dorm or college address can be an acceptable address to register to vote in Virginia, but they still left it to local authorities to interpret and enforce.
"One of the reasons in the past that jurisdictions have tried to deny the vote to college students is that they expected that college students might vote differently from the rest of them," says Richard Hasen, the William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. "And the Supreme Court has been pretty clear that that's not a good reason."
According to a 2006 study from the Institute for Public Affairs and Civic Engagement at Salisbury University in Maryland, 11 of the 50 states make it difficult for students to register to vote at their school address.
Is McCain disenfranchising Democrats?
Another trick to keep voters from the polls seems to have been played by the McCain campaign, although this has gotten mostly blog coverage to my knowledge and no official news coverage so the truthfulness may be in question… Many individuals have reported online that strong and established Democrats in places like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio have received absentee ballot requests explicitly from the McCain campaign (see images here). Many of these mailings had an incorrect or improper address that would have caused the request to be delivered to the wrong place or to the right place after the deadline for an absentee request (note that in many places you do not have to meet certain requirements to vote absentee, you can just vote by mail from home). These Democrats, particularly people who work for the Party and have never received a piece of Republican literature in their lives, can’t understand why they would get this kind of material now unless it was meant to misdirect the absentee requests.
However, it seems extremely unlikely that the McCain campaign would explicitly engage is something like this, and furthermore not receive negative media coverage and even some kind of government punishment as a result. Nonetheless, this website links to stories of the absentee mailer (all with different errors) from Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Minnesota, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Again, two things seem clear – if this was real, the McCain camp would have been called out on it, and that a huge number of residents did receive the faulty McCain material. All of these events raise important questions about voters’ rights and voter caging, as well as issues about who blames who for apparent problems and how the mainstream media covers (or fails to cover) the possible breaches of voters’ rights by the major campaigns.
A Wink to the Two Joes…Biden and Sixpack
Thursday evening September 4th, in the Excel Center in St. Paul, Minnesota, history unfolded. Convention floor conversation shifted from the Nation’s most recent natural disaster, Hurricane Gustav to the wildly anticipated introduction of the GOP Vice Presidential nominee, Sarah Palin. From the moment the American public first laid eyes on the female VP hopeful, every word, wave and wink has been carefully scrutinized.
Alaska’s Governor Palin has certainly given Americans something to talk about.
Based on the huge crowds she gathers for rally appearances, television and talk show gigs, Palin has quickly achieved super stardom status. When one of the four Presidential debates was designated to showcase the Vice Presidential candidates, the networks realized they could count on record numbers in the viewing audience. Oh, and by the way, before I forget to mention, the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee, Joe Biden was going to be present to debate the enormously intriguing new female politician.
The debate stage was set on the St. Louis campus of Washington University located in Missouri, a currently undecided state on Tuesday evening September 30th. The highly anticipated event drew additional preliminary interest in the appointment of PBA moderator, Gwen Ifill.
The general public was most curious of the author of a literary work set to be release on Inauguration Day 2009 having been chosen to moderate the ninety-minute debate. A book entitled “Breakthrough: Politics and Peace in the Age of Obama,” had many citizens wondering if her line of questioning might be skewed. She did not disclose her book plans to the Presidential Debate Committee. She spoke about the book in a Washington Post interview on September 3rd. She claims that the chapter on Obama has yet to be written.
Post debate consensus reflected a favorable response as to the fairness of her inquiries. Several journalist, who have worked closely with Ms. Ifill, stated, they beieve she is the consummmate professional and neutrailty would be displayed. Even Sen. John McCain said, "I think that Gwen Ifill is a professional, and I think she will do a totally objective job because she is a highly-respected professional."
From the moment both candidates were introduced on to the debate stage, a confident charisma was evident. Governor Palin, meeting Senator Biden for the first time immediately relaxed the environment by asked the Senator if she might be allowed to call him “Joe.” The early moments of the debate revealed each candidates debate demeanor.
Senator Biden took every opportunity to affirm his long-standing relationship with Senator McCain. As the questions unfolded it became quite clear that the longevity of the work relationship between the two Senators had created an edge for knowledge as to how John McCain had tackled issues, promoted legislation and casts vote over the past several decades. Clearly, Joe Biden could have taken many additional opportunities to trump Palin with his vast Congressional history.
Biden elder statesman persona permeated with each response, while Palin opted for the down-home, folksy form of personal confidence. Palin arrived at the debate with a most unfortunate television interview laden with missteps looming over her head. With the exception of the resurrection of Union General McCellan, she maneuvered through the issues void of embarrassment. Perpetuating the traditional VP position of “do no harm.”
Understandably, each candidate being a parent of a young military man, framed poignant references to those serving our country. Biden boldly stood up as a father totally committed to the task of single parenthood following a family tragedy. Palin surprised many when she made reference to a commitment of tolerance to Americans engaged in alternative relationships.
Many viewers, myself included, would have preferred if the debaters had stuck directly to inquires as presented by Moderator Ifill’s. Continually, each candidate took the liberty to avoid subjects and replace the response time readdressing issues previously covered. Personally, I wanted to see both candidates come off of their respective stump speech. Considering both’s ability to created unfavorable campaign press due to gaffs staying on message proved to be best strategically for the campaigns but I question if that is what the American people wanted.
Considering the immense learning curve on the part of Governor Palin, many analysts gave her high marks. A member of CNN’s real time response dial testing focus group felt uncomfortable when Palin said “I’ve only been at this for 5 weeks.”
Without a doubt, she earned personal redemption from the poor performance during her interview with CBS Nightly News anchor, Katie Couric. The banner polls plastered over the television screen, post debate seems to insinuate that Biden had been the most impressive with those participating in the viewer feedback vehicle.
All in all, both Vice Presidential wannabes exhibited knowledge and conducted themselves with dignity for the hour and a half of programming. In the end, Biden was able to muzzle his excessive rhetoric and Palin was one wink away from a debate that met American expectation.
Alaska’s Governor Palin has certainly given Americans something to talk about.
Based on the huge crowds she gathers for rally appearances, television and talk show gigs, Palin has quickly achieved super stardom status. When one of the four Presidential debates was designated to showcase the Vice Presidential candidates, the networks realized they could count on record numbers in the viewing audience. Oh, and by the way, before I forget to mention, the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee, Joe Biden was going to be present to debate the enormously intriguing new female politician.
The debate stage was set on the St. Louis campus of Washington University located in Missouri, a currently undecided state on Tuesday evening September 30th. The highly anticipated event drew additional preliminary interest in the appointment of PBA moderator, Gwen Ifill.
The general public was most curious of the author of a literary work set to be release on Inauguration Day 2009 having been chosen to moderate the ninety-minute debate. A book entitled “Breakthrough: Politics and Peace in the Age of Obama,” had many citizens wondering if her line of questioning might be skewed. She did not disclose her book plans to the Presidential Debate Committee. She spoke about the book in a Washington Post interview on September 3rd. She claims that the chapter on Obama has yet to be written.
Post debate consensus reflected a favorable response as to the fairness of her inquiries. Several journalist, who have worked closely with Ms. Ifill, stated, they beieve she is the consummmate professional and neutrailty would be displayed. Even Sen. John McCain said, "I think that Gwen Ifill is a professional, and I think she will do a totally objective job because she is a highly-respected professional."
From the moment both candidates were introduced on to the debate stage, a confident charisma was evident. Governor Palin, meeting Senator Biden for the first time immediately relaxed the environment by asked the Senator if she might be allowed to call him “Joe.” The early moments of the debate revealed each candidates debate demeanor.
Senator Biden took every opportunity to affirm his long-standing relationship with Senator McCain. As the questions unfolded it became quite clear that the longevity of the work relationship between the two Senators had created an edge for knowledge as to how John McCain had tackled issues, promoted legislation and casts vote over the past several decades. Clearly, Joe Biden could have taken many additional opportunities to trump Palin with his vast Congressional history.
Biden elder statesman persona permeated with each response, while Palin opted for the down-home, folksy form of personal confidence. Palin arrived at the debate with a most unfortunate television interview laden with missteps looming over her head. With the exception of the resurrection of Union General McCellan, she maneuvered through the issues void of embarrassment. Perpetuating the traditional VP position of “do no harm.”
Understandably, each candidate being a parent of a young military man, framed poignant references to those serving our country. Biden boldly stood up as a father totally committed to the task of single parenthood following a family tragedy. Palin surprised many when she made reference to a commitment of tolerance to Americans engaged in alternative relationships.
Many viewers, myself included, would have preferred if the debaters had stuck directly to inquires as presented by Moderator Ifill’s. Continually, each candidate took the liberty to avoid subjects and replace the response time readdressing issues previously covered. Personally, I wanted to see both candidates come off of their respective stump speech. Considering both’s ability to created unfavorable campaign press due to gaffs staying on message proved to be best strategically for the campaigns but I question if that is what the American people wanted.
Considering the immense learning curve on the part of Governor Palin, many analysts gave her high marks. A member of CNN’s real time response dial testing focus group felt uncomfortable when Palin said “I’ve only been at this for 5 weeks.”
Without a doubt, she earned personal redemption from the poor performance during her interview with CBS Nightly News anchor, Katie Couric. The banner polls plastered over the television screen, post debate seems to insinuate that Biden had been the most impressive with those participating in the viewer feedback vehicle.
All in all, both Vice Presidential wannabes exhibited knowledge and conducted themselves with dignity for the hour and a half of programming. In the end, Biden was able to muzzle his excessive rhetoric and Palin was one wink away from a debate that met American expectation.
Palin: Helping or Hurting?
The question foremost on the minds of Americans over the past several weeks is whether Senator McCain’s running mate is helping or hurting his campaign. After Governor Palin’s convention speech, USA Today reported a sizeable boost in public approval and enthusiasm for the Republican campaign, a statistic seconded by most polling centers and news outlets. But since the first few weeks following the convention, the McCain-Palin ticket has seen a gradual decrease in voter enthusiasm for their campaign (see article), and a lot of it seems to be attributable to Governor Palin’s seeming inability to articulate responses to important questions during interviews. The question we need to be asking is what are her critics saying? Her supporters? And what impact has had the debate had on their viewpoints?
Maybe the most surprising denouncer of Governor Palin as unqualified, was conservative journalist Kathleen Parker (see article) who, although admits that Palin has common sense, executive experience, and an all-American, very appealing persona, states in a recent article that “Palin's recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity and Katie Couric have revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate - who is clearly out of her league.” Parker admits McCain can’t repudiate his choice for running mate so it is up to Palin to “bow out for personal reasons.”
Parker’s call for Palin to step down was published in the National Review pre-vice presidential debate, and Parker’s follow-up column appeared in today’s (Saturday’s) edition of the Washington Post. In the article Parker seemed shocked when she questioned the where-abouts of “The Palin who performed so miserably in one-on-one media interviews” and declared she “was nowhere to be seen during Thursday night's debate with Joe Biden.” Instead she called the Palin sparring with Biden during the debate, “affable, tough, a determined pit-bull-hockey mom.”
At the conclusion of the column Parker leaves the question of whether Palin is prepared for the vice presidency un-answered, qualifying it with the same question for Senator Obama and the presidency.
While Parker may be the most vocal conservative presenting her opinion of Palin’s incompetence, hundreds of other journalists, experts, and average people both liberals and conservatives are calling for Palin to step down, or are at least expressing their opinion of her un-readiness to lead.
Another of the more vocal journalists calling for Governor Palin’s exit from the campaign is Fareed Zakaria, international editor for Newsweek. In an article from the October 6 issue of the news-magazine entitled “Palin is ready? Please,” Zakaria declares Palin completely unqualified to serve as vice-president. Zakaria states Palin is a “feisty, charismatic politician” but goes on to say that “she has never spent a day thinking about any important national or international issue.”
Obviously this article and many others like it were written before Thursday night’s vice-presidential debate and this must be factored into the opinions of Governor Palin’s critics. But, although overall opinion of Palin following her performance at the debate was favorable, Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic declared, “I don't think this debate changed the direction of this election campaign.”
Sullivan declared the debate to be more of the same Palin the public has been seeing over the last through weeks in her media interviews, an “inability to answer real questions, her capacity to avoid follow-ups,” among other things. He calls for a situation in which Palin is “forced to answer” these difficult questions.
But while Governor Palin’s critics are still numerous, there are many who have changed their opinions of Palin and her abilities after her success in the debate Thursday night.
In the Post Chronicle, the staff ran an editorial declaring Palin proved her ability to lead in her triumphant performance in the debate Thursday night in which she showed herself “a real person a real leader connecting with every American.” It appears that the debate had the capacity to change the minds of many and fortunately Palin did not disappoint.
It was vitally important that Governor Palin have a triumph in the debate on Thursday night after at least a week of un-flattering interviews with the press. Not only were Democrats being handed on a plate their rationale for criticizing the Governor’s credentials, but Republicans were feeling dis-heartened as well as it has been nearly impossible to find anything positive written about Palin in the past week.
Kathryn Jean Lopez of the National Review Online expressed this feeling of discouragement infiltrating Republican’s emotions concerning Palin’s qualifications, stating in an article that she has received dozens of post-debate emails from individuals saying they were “relieved” at Palin’s performance. But post-debate Lopez seconds her co-workers statement that “The more they [liberals] sneer, the more they’ll fire up the Republican volunteers.”
Obviously the excitement Governor Palin originally brought to the campaign with her triumphant convention speech at the beginning of September, although recently waning, is not completely extinguished. During the debate Thursday Palin seemed to negate some of her negative press and re-instill confidence in not only her supporters, but even in some of her critics. Whether in the long run Palin hurts or helps McCain, well, that remains to be seen, but I think I can say with confidence that Governor Palin surprised a few people with her debate Thursday night, and I can also say with confidence that she isn’t going anywhere anytime soon.
Maybe the most surprising denouncer of Governor Palin as unqualified, was conservative journalist Kathleen Parker (see article) who, although admits that Palin has common sense, executive experience, and an all-American, very appealing persona, states in a recent article that “Palin's recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity and Katie Couric have revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate - who is clearly out of her league.” Parker admits McCain can’t repudiate his choice for running mate so it is up to Palin to “bow out for personal reasons.”
Parker’s call for Palin to step down was published in the National Review pre-vice presidential debate, and Parker’s follow-up column appeared in today’s (Saturday’s) edition of the Washington Post. In the article Parker seemed shocked when she questioned the where-abouts of “The Palin who performed so miserably in one-on-one media interviews” and declared she “was nowhere to be seen during Thursday night's debate with Joe Biden.” Instead she called the Palin sparring with Biden during the debate, “affable, tough, a determined pit-bull-hockey mom.”
At the conclusion of the column Parker leaves the question of whether Palin is prepared for the vice presidency un-answered, qualifying it with the same question for Senator Obama and the presidency.
While Parker may be the most vocal conservative presenting her opinion of Palin’s incompetence, hundreds of other journalists, experts, and average people both liberals and conservatives are calling for Palin to step down, or are at least expressing their opinion of her un-readiness to lead.
Another of the more vocal journalists calling for Governor Palin’s exit from the campaign is Fareed Zakaria, international editor for Newsweek. In an article from the October 6 issue of the news-magazine entitled “Palin is ready? Please,” Zakaria declares Palin completely unqualified to serve as vice-president. Zakaria states Palin is a “feisty, charismatic politician” but goes on to say that “she has never spent a day thinking about any important national or international issue.”
Obviously this article and many others like it were written before Thursday night’s vice-presidential debate and this must be factored into the opinions of Governor Palin’s critics. But, although overall opinion of Palin following her performance at the debate was favorable, Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic declared, “I don't think this debate changed the direction of this election campaign.”
Sullivan declared the debate to be more of the same Palin the public has been seeing over the last through weeks in her media interviews, an “inability to answer real questions, her capacity to avoid follow-ups,” among other things. He calls for a situation in which Palin is “forced to answer” these difficult questions.
But while Governor Palin’s critics are still numerous, there are many who have changed their opinions of Palin and her abilities after her success in the debate Thursday night.
In the Post Chronicle, the staff ran an editorial declaring Palin proved her ability to lead in her triumphant performance in the debate Thursday night in which she showed herself “a real person a real leader connecting with every American.” It appears that the debate had the capacity to change the minds of many and fortunately Palin did not disappoint.
It was vitally important that Governor Palin have a triumph in the debate on Thursday night after at least a week of un-flattering interviews with the press. Not only were Democrats being handed on a plate their rationale for criticizing the Governor’s credentials, but Republicans were feeling dis-heartened as well as it has been nearly impossible to find anything positive written about Palin in the past week.
Kathryn Jean Lopez of the National Review Online expressed this feeling of discouragement infiltrating Republican’s emotions concerning Palin’s qualifications, stating in an article that she has received dozens of post-debate emails from individuals saying they were “relieved” at Palin’s performance. But post-debate Lopez seconds her co-workers statement that “The more they [liberals] sneer, the more they’ll fire up the Republican volunteers.”
Obviously the excitement Governor Palin originally brought to the campaign with her triumphant convention speech at the beginning of September, although recently waning, is not completely extinguished. During the debate Thursday Palin seemed to negate some of her negative press and re-instill confidence in not only her supporters, but even in some of her critics. Whether in the long run Palin hurts or helps McCain, well, that remains to be seen, but I think I can say with confidence that Governor Palin surprised a few people with her debate Thursday night, and I can also say with confidence that she isn’t going anywhere anytime soon.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Who's running this race?
Not so funny business
“President Bush, citing his authority as Commander in Chief of the armed forces and his inherent constitutional power over foreign affairs, today ordered a postponement of the 2008 presidential election in order ‘to protect the American people in our war on terror.’
In a speech during a surprise visit to Baghdad, where he celebrated the summer solstice with the troops, Mr. Bush told the nation that the election will be ‘rescheduled as soon as a change in leadership does not create a security threat and not a second later. When the Iraqis stand up, we'll vote.’”
This “report” from the Nation is obviously satirical, but the issue raises for the 2008 presidential election is not. Every presidential election since 1928—that’s 80 years—has included some kind of White House incumbant, either a VP or president. That’s multiple generations of presidential elections, which leaves the current political campaigns without any modern precedent or clearly defined “role” to follow. In grappling with the situation the candidates have strategically tried to move into the beneficial areas of both the incumbency and challenger roles when they think they can benefit, but also move away from the labels associated with those roles when necessary.
Change, change…and some more change
Maybe if the last 8 years had been more popular among the American electorate the presidential candidates would have something other than “change” to tout around. To some degree every election season tends to have some wind of change, even if there is for an incumbant president or vice president, but this year the theme is particularily blatent. The Obama camp is the original owner of the mantra. ”Change we can believe in” has been the campaign’s slogan since before the January primaries, and serves as the war cry for supporters.
Luckily for Obama the phrase worked well against both of his main opponents in the last year. During the primaries Clinton represented “old Washington” with Bill by her side, and the point was repeatedly made by the media that another Clinton administration would set a family pattern that goes against American ideals: Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. As the underdog before the Iowa caucus Obama could also play the challenger card.
The communication style of his challenger position might have been Obama’s greatest strength throughout the primary season and summer interregnum, and possible even still. In Judith Trent and Robert Freidenburg’s book Political Campaign Communication the ability to stand on the offensive side of issue is a benefit that only a challenger can really implement. In doing so, a candidate limits specific language or policy plans instead relying on broad ideas and concepts while forcing the opponent to address specific policy concerns. As a general rule, the more specific a challenger gets with the issues, the more ammunition s/he gives the other side to attack, and the less likely s/he will succeed.
The Obama communication strategy has been well followed. While Obama himself rallies his base with general messages of change and salvation with his new leadership, his surrogates have been manning the more specific topics and providing criticisms of the opposition. This also allows the campaign to embody another one of Trent and Fredenberg’s principles of challenger success: “appearing to represent the philosophical center.” Despite Obama’s highly liberal voting record and lack of bipartisan legislation, he somehow came to be the candidate who would shake up Washington and break down partisan barriers. His weapon has been his words.
Often, though, Obama’s best communication strategy has not been in how he defines himself, but how the campaign has defined his opponent.
Four more years?
In the 2000 election the drama was between Bush and McCain. Bush was actually accused of sabotaging the McCain campaign by spreading rumors about the senator’s fidelity. They hated each other, but does anyone remember that? If one were to rely on the news and candidate speeches today it would seem that McCain and Bush are peas in a pod, which is precisely what the Obama camp would like financially struggling and politically frustrated Americans to believe.
This strategy has paid off in the past few weeks as Wall Street slipped and the word “recession” conjured images of the Great Depression. Suddenly Obama’s poll numbers are shooting up, totally eclipsing any convention bounce McCain and Palin were still enjoying, but national numbers don’t matter nearly as much as the numbers in battleground states. Obama is now winning in the three “key” states some analysts claim candidates must claim 2/3 of to win.
McCain is trying hard to respond to the Obama campaigns charges through his new “mavericks” campaign, but the word Republican might be enough to turn off independents and any moderate votes on either side of the aisle. If the McCain camp wants to win this election, it might come down to finding a way to not only steal the challenger position from Obama, but also define their candidate as a fiscal independent. McCain need to effectively communicative that he is not the incumbent in this election in order to escape the Democratic charge that the financial mess facing all Americans is the result of the last four years.
“President Bush, citing his authority as Commander in Chief of the armed forces and his inherent constitutional power over foreign affairs, today ordered a postponement of the 2008 presidential election in order ‘to protect the American people in our war on terror.’
In a speech during a surprise visit to Baghdad, where he celebrated the summer solstice with the troops, Mr. Bush told the nation that the election will be ‘rescheduled as soon as a change in leadership does not create a security threat and not a second later. When the Iraqis stand up, we'll vote.’”
This “report” from the Nation is obviously satirical, but the issue raises for the 2008 presidential election is not. Every presidential election since 1928—that’s 80 years—has included some kind of White House incumbant, either a VP or president. That’s multiple generations of presidential elections, which leaves the current political campaigns without any modern precedent or clearly defined “role” to follow. In grappling with the situation the candidates have strategically tried to move into the beneficial areas of both the incumbency and challenger roles when they think they can benefit, but also move away from the labels associated with those roles when necessary.
Change, change…and some more change
Maybe if the last 8 years had been more popular among the American electorate the presidential candidates would have something other than “change” to tout around. To some degree every election season tends to have some wind of change, even if there is for an incumbant president or vice president, but this year the theme is particularily blatent. The Obama camp is the original owner of the mantra. ”Change we can believe in” has been the campaign’s slogan since before the January primaries, and serves as the war cry for supporters.
Luckily for Obama the phrase worked well against both of his main opponents in the last year. During the primaries Clinton represented “old Washington” with Bill by her side, and the point was repeatedly made by the media that another Clinton administration would set a family pattern that goes against American ideals: Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. As the underdog before the Iowa caucus Obama could also play the challenger card.
The communication style of his challenger position might have been Obama’s greatest strength throughout the primary season and summer interregnum, and possible even still. In Judith Trent and Robert Freidenburg’s book Political Campaign Communication the ability to stand on the offensive side of issue is a benefit that only a challenger can really implement. In doing so, a candidate limits specific language or policy plans instead relying on broad ideas and concepts while forcing the opponent to address specific policy concerns. As a general rule, the more specific a challenger gets with the issues, the more ammunition s/he gives the other side to attack, and the less likely s/he will succeed.
The Obama communication strategy has been well followed. While Obama himself rallies his base with general messages of change and salvation with his new leadership, his surrogates have been manning the more specific topics and providing criticisms of the opposition. This also allows the campaign to embody another one of Trent and Fredenberg’s principles of challenger success: “appearing to represent the philosophical center.” Despite Obama’s highly liberal voting record and lack of bipartisan legislation, he somehow came to be the candidate who would shake up Washington and break down partisan barriers. His weapon has been his words.
Often, though, Obama’s best communication strategy has not been in how he defines himself, but how the campaign has defined his opponent.
Four more years?
In the 2000 election the drama was between Bush and McCain. Bush was actually accused of sabotaging the McCain campaign by spreading rumors about the senator’s fidelity. They hated each other, but does anyone remember that? If one were to rely on the news and candidate speeches today it would seem that McCain and Bush are peas in a pod, which is precisely what the Obama camp would like financially struggling and politically frustrated Americans to believe.
This strategy has paid off in the past few weeks as Wall Street slipped and the word “recession” conjured images of the Great Depression. Suddenly Obama’s poll numbers are shooting up, totally eclipsing any convention bounce McCain and Palin were still enjoying, but national numbers don’t matter nearly as much as the numbers in battleground states. Obama is now winning in the three “key” states some analysts claim candidates must claim 2/3 of to win.
McCain is trying hard to respond to the Obama campaigns charges through his new “mavericks” campaign, but the word Republican might be enough to turn off independents and any moderate votes on either side of the aisle. If the McCain camp wants to win this election, it might come down to finding a way to not only steal the challenger position from Obama, but also define their candidate as a fiscal independent. McCain need to effectively communicative that he is not the incumbent in this election in order to escape the Democratic charge that the financial mess facing all Americans is the result of the last four years.
Both candidates vote "Yea" on Senate bailout bill
At the 34 day mark in this presidential election, I do not think anyone would have predicted both Senator Obama and Senator McCain would be heading back to Washington to vote on a $700 billion bailout plan. Even more surprisingly, they agreed on something. While in the first debate there was little they could agree on, both Senators voted "Yea" on the bill tonight.
When speaking of the importance of sacrifice on both sides for this bill, Senator Obama said "because now, more than ever, we are all in this together". Speaking on the same subject, McCain talked about how Harry Truman was a successful president "because every day Harry Truman woke up determined to put his country before party and self-interest." The statements from both Senators are similar in theme: lowering the barriers of partisanship to help the country in a time of crisis. Having both presidential candidates as senators has made this election even more interesting to watch.
When speaking of the importance of sacrifice on both sides for this bill, Senator Obama said "because now, more than ever, we are all in this together". Speaking on the same subject, McCain talked about how Harry Truman was a successful president "because every day Harry Truman woke up determined to put his country before party and self-interest." The statements from both Senators are similar in theme: lowering the barriers of partisanship to help the country in a time of crisis. Having both presidential candidates as senators has made this election even more interesting to watch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
