SMU Election Project

Obama's Daughters on Hannah Montana?

2008-11-12T09:20:00.000-08:00

Seriously? Add it on to the celebrity status of the Obama family. In an interview with Access Hollywood, Billy Ray Cyrus spoke of his extended invitation for Malia, 10, and Sasha, 7, to appear on an April episode, the UK Telegraph reports.

Obama has said in recent interviews that his daughters were big fans of the show. However, Barack and Michelle have made an enormous effort to keep the girls out of the media. Should be interesting to see how this shakes out.

Patriotic Man Flies Flag Upside-Down in Protest

2008-11-10T08:10:00.000-08:00

In Arlington, TX, Patrick O'Toole flew his American flag upside down beneath a solid black flag. O'Toole has proudly raised and lowered his American flag since 9/11. In protest to Obama's win, this has stirred up the entire neighborhood. Neighbor Sharon Garner said, "I just don't think its American. We have children in our neighborhood, and I'm sure their parents have to explain to them why that flag is hanging like that."

When asked by a WFAA reporter, O'Toole defended his action by saying "The black flag is because our country is dying. It's never been as divided as it is right now. And the upside down American flag is because our country is in distress." O'Toole, who is a Navy veteran, further explains that the black flag has absolutely nothing to do with race.

O'Toole stands behind is action and will continue to fly his flags as he sees fit. This is ultimately a free speech issue. His neighbors can ask him to take it down, however he seems pretty set in his beliefs on this.

Video Clip:

http://www.wfaa.com/video/?nvid=301731&shu=1

Get your papers!

2008-11-06T18:54:00.000-08:00

Print news publications did not predict the overwhelming desire for a piece of history and printed proof that Obama is the President Elect. Newsstands were empty mid-day on Wednesday and now copies of the various newspapers are being sold for as much as 200 dollars on e-bay. One man in Baltimore snagged 90 copies at once, reports the International Herald Tribune. Most front pages have a gigantic photo of Obama and a short headline about change, plays on his campaign slogans, history or victory. Above is a collage from the Chicago Sun Times.

You can check out nearly all the newspapers headlines of Obama's victory here.

Even with the internet immortalizing just about everything that goes on in this country from the high school break up to the peaceful transition of power, the value of a printed paper is not lost on Americans

Here are some other front pages from Wednesday. Each of these headlines emphasize the historic victory of our nation's first black president.

Election Day Forecasting

2008-11-04T09:34:00.000-08:00

The weather might have an effect on voter turnout thus affecting the numbers at the polls. An upper level trough has brought snow to the mountains in the western portion of the U.S. In Virginia and North Carolina, where polls show both candidates in a virtual dead heat, rainy and windy weather will combat with voters there.

The rest of the U.S. doesn't look so bad with moderate temperatures appropriate for this time of year across the board. What possible effects this will have on the election is yet to be seen, but certainly Virginia and North Carolina will feel the effects if nothing else.

As if the bad weather in Virginia weren't enough, there have been reports of problems with the voting machines. In Richmond Virginia, a breakdown of the electronic voting machines "led to a three-and-a-half hour wait to vote".

The FINAL count....One day to go!

2008-11-03T23:02:00.001-08:00

As we have analyzed each state over the course of the past few months, our class calls the race for Obama-Biden with 321 electoral votes to McCain-Palin's 217.

The swing states were called as follows:

Obama: Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia
McCain: Missouri, North Carolina, and Florida

Maine was called 3 electoral votes for Obama and 1 for McCain.

We will be keeping a close eye on the battleground states, especially looking at the number of voters who turn out at the polls.

Continuing the attacks: Palin on Obama and Coal

2008-11-02T21:49:00.001-08:00

While speaking in Ohio today, Palin attacked Obama for a recording by the San Francisco Chronicle in an interview with Obama in January. Palin said, “This interview was given to San Francisco folks many, many months ago. You should have known about this, so that you would have better decision-making information as you go into the voting booth.”

Race continues to look different from 2004

2008-11-01T14:33:00.000-07:00

Obama has purchased ad time in Arizona, John McCain's home turf. The Obama campaign has said that the ad will be positive, rather than critical of McCain, in an effort not to offend any voters in the state. In Arizona, polls show that the race has been tightening but is very unlikely to tip to Obama's favor before Election Day. So what's with the ad buy? Obama campaign manager David Plouffe says that with a Democratic governor and an increasingly influential Hispanic population, Arizona is worth a try (and after all, they can afford it).

"It's enough in the realm of possibility that we want to put a little extra effort in the end," Plouffe said. "We're just going to give it a go in the last three or four days and see how close we can get it."

It could also be meant to throw the McCain campaign further off course in the last days of the election - McCain was seemingly prompted to appear in Arizona after Obama made the buy.

The Obama campaign is also venturing into Georgia and aiming for a possible victory based on the support from the youth and from black voters. Obama is also working hard for support in Colorado, Nevada, and Missouri, all of which Bush won comfortably in 2004. Ultimately, this is shaping up to be an election very unlike the last two. States that were once assumed to be easy grabs for McCain, red states that Bush won in 2000 and 2004, have become very uncertain for the Republican candidate. On the other end, McCain is making inroads in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire, two states which voted Democratic in 2004.

Where will the candidates be for the final days?

2008-10-31T09:39:00.000-07:00

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

Obama's infomercial: A good call?

2008-10-31T09:33:00.000-07:00

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.

Anti-Obama Carnival

2008-10-30T09:35:00.001-07:00

McCain comments on Obama's 30 minute ad

2008-10-30T09:30:00.000-07:00

John McCain's interview with Larry King ran last night right after Obama's notorious 30 minute ad. As reported on CNN.com today, Here is what McCain had to say about the ad and Obama's spending in general:

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.

Not a traditional Halloween display

2008-10-28T17:09:00.000-07:00

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.

Assassination plot broken up

2008-10-27T18:46:00.000-07:00

What effect will the assassination plot on Obama have on the election next week?

Are you Joe the Plumber?

2008-10-27T17:30:00.001-07:00

The interview that has everyone talking

2008-10-27T17:20:00.000-07:00

Budget matters

2008-10-27T10:52:00.000-07:00

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.

Major Endorsements from Major Newspapers are Filtering In

2008-10-27T09:14:00.000-07:00

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)

Will Obama say anything to win?

2008-10-23T10:09:00.000-07:00

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.

The Chronicles of Sarah Palin: The Elephant, The RNC, and The Wardrobe

2008-10-22T11:28:00.000-07:00

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.

Is this Presidential Race over?

2008-10-22T09:25:00.001-07:00

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.

The "Sleeping Giant" Has Awoken

2008-10-21T17:27:00.000-07:00

“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.

Swing counties in swing states

2008-10-21T12:18:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-10-21T09:17:00.000-07:00

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.

The double O's: Obama and Oprah

2008-10-21T08:35:00.001-07:00

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

2008-10-21T06:55:00.000-07:00

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.

Why are YOU reading this blog?

2008-10-20T19:24:00.000-07:00

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.

Interactive Map

2008-10-20T18:50:00.000-07:00

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"

2008-10-20T13:05:00.000-07:00

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.

Colin Powell supports Obama

2008-10-20T12:15:00.000-07:00

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.

Tax Analogy

2008-10-20T11:29:00.001-07:00

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.

Some Perspective via David Letterman

2008-10-20T11:25:00.000-07:00

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?'

Have Slogan will Smear!

2008-10-20T09:23:00.000-07:00

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!

Obama's Fundraising for September

2008-10-19T22:45:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-19T21:00:00.000-07:00

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.

Voting for Skin Color, Not Issues

2008-10-19T20:54:00.000-07:00

"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!

“Does anybody in their right mind think that Gen. Powell would ever endorse anyone that had any patience with terrorists?"

2008-10-19T19:17:00.000-07:00

Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama this morning on Meet the Press has sparked a variety of responses among people on all sides of the race. Obama is "beyond honored and deeply humbled." He will use this as a huge legitimizer with regard to foreign policy/military issues and reaching across the aisle and working with Republicans. Politico reports that David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist, expects that Powell's endorsement will be persuasive to many independent voters. In addition, the Democratic campaign will be able to repeat and use Powell's harsh words for Republicans to their advantage. McCain responded to the endorsement with the "doesn't come as a surprise" line, as if to say "oh well, no big deal." McCain did get an important endorsement of his own today, but telenovela actress Katie Barberi just doesn't have the same effect as the former U.S. Secretary of State. A Mexican-American, she does raise the important topic of Hispanic voters and their concerns in her announcement of support for John McCain.

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.

Politics of Hatred

2008-10-16T19:13:00.000-07:00

"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.

Negative Ads: Are they actually positive?

2008-10-15T22:55:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-15T22:25:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-15T21:57:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-15T19:07:00.000-07:00

"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)

Distraction or obligation?

2008-10-13T18:59:00.001-07:00

Are "20, 30, 40 million" people really talking about this? Should they be talking about this?

The Advertising War; Politics, Money, and Message

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

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".

Independent Female Voters

2008-10-09T08:09:00.000-07:00

Gallup says race may not be a factor

2008-10-09T07:56:00.001-07:00

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".

What do these 3 have in common? They're related!

2008-10-08T10:34:00.000-07:00

President
Franklin 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?

Debate Tonight

2008-10-07T15:14:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-07T11:35:00.001-07:00

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

2008-10-07T08:25:00.000-07:00

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...

To protect, serve and vote

2008-10-06T21:17:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-06T19:12:00.000-07:00

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.

Early Voting and the impact on this election

2008-10-06T12:17:00.000-07:00

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.

Big things on Tuesday?

2008-10-06T12:16:00.000-07:00

Voting Abroad and International Opinion

2008-10-06T10:05:00.000-07:00

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?

Politico's Playback 10/6: SNL, Jay Leno, Conan O'Brian, and David Letterman

2008-10-06T09:42:00.000-07:00

The Power of Parody

2008-10-06T08:17:00.000-07:00

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.

Campaign Ads No Longer Have As Far a Reach to Grab Voters Attention

2008-10-06T00:50:00.000-07:00

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!

Cindy v. Michelle: A Look at the Role these Women are Playing in the Presidental Campaign

2008-10-05T21:27:00.000-07:00

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.

Electoral Tie?

2008-10-05T21:11:00.000-07:00

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 Obama, 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"

2008-10-05T20:04:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-05T18:17:00.000-07:00

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.

Hark! The Campaign Ads Sing

2008-10-05T15:46:00.000-07:00

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.

Every voter for him/herself

2008-10-04T13:26:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-04T10:09:00.000-07:00

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.

Palin: Helping or Hurting?

2008-10-04T08:45:00.000-07:00

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.

Who's running this race?

2008-10-01T20:38:00.000-07:00

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.

Both candidates vote "Yea" on Senate bailout bill

2008-10-01T20:18:00.000-07:00

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.

"Gotcha Journalism"

2008-09-30T14:42:00.000-07:00

As we discuss in the classroom the idea of "gotcha journalism", we see that this does actually happen...or at least McCain and Palin seem to think so.

Pelosi's partisan appeal on bail out

2008-09-29T14:03:00.000-07:00

Politics muddy the waters of an already chaotic situation. Whether she was right or wrong, the question for many is whether this was the right time for Pelosi to bring up the partisanship of the situation. Could her comments kill the possibility of passing anything meaningful?

The Economic Bubble - Close to Bursting

2008-09-29T07:26:00.001-07:00

Years ago, during the Great Depression, Franklin D. Roosevelt helped issue in a bill that would steer America in the right direction. The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, also known as the Banking Act of 1933, prohibited "commercial banks from engaging in the investment business." This was a large step forward to repairing the economy of the U.S. as it created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, (FDIC), which insured deposits for individual accounts. This provided the banks with credibility as well as the government. The government in those days, was seen as a liberator from harsh times. Although the act took several years to have a positive effect, we were privy to economic prosperity it afforded for quite a while.

In 1999, Republicans and other policy makers repealed the Glass-Steagall Act. In its place went the new Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that deregulated the banking industry. There were few that dissented when the vote came to call; North Dakota Democrat Byron Dorgan was one of them. His comments at the time now make him seem as though he knew what the future would hold. "I think we will look back in 10 years' time and say we should not have done this, but we did because we forgot the lessons of the past, and that that which is true in the 1930s is true in 2010." Senator Dorgan was correct in his assumption and unfortunately his prediction came true earlier than expected.

This past Saturday, Senator Dorgan took to the Senate floor pounding home the point in the midst of this latest economic meltdown. Senator Dorgan talked about the collapse of Washington Mutual and the ramifications of a golden parachute.

"Well, as I said, last year the CEO of a company that went belly up last night made $14 million, and the replacement, working 3 weeks, will make $19 million. What does $19 million equate to? Well, I figured at $50,000 a year for an average salary in this country, it would take 382 years for a worker to earn what this man is going to get in severance payments and bonuses for a 3 week stint in a failed company. Unbelievable. Absolutely unbelievable. But it is a hood ornament on a carnival of greed that has existed now for some while, unabated, in which people at the top have made massive quantities of money."

This culture of greed has brought about the collapse not only of Washington Mutual, but also that of other banks, most recently Wachovia, and this has been due in large part to the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. Banks are buying up high risk mortgages and selling them on the speculative market. All too often these mortgages are backed up by no-doc or low-doc loans. No-doc loans allows a borrow to provide no documentation of income and low-doc is for a low documentation of income. Mortgage companies made it easy for people without the ability to pay for mortgages to get a loan for them. Then, after maybe a 3 year grace period, they'd hit the borrower with a prepayment penalty, (so they couldn't pay on the loan,) and with a high interest rate that made it impossible for the borrower to pay back the loan. Sadly, " in addition to 2 million people losing their homes, then we see the consequences of all these bad, toxic securities, mortgage-backed securities lying in the bowels of these big investment banks and regular banks as well, whose deposits are insured by the Federal Government." (Dorgan)

So what is the solution to this quagmire? Senator Dorgan has expressed that several items need to be revised in our search for a solution. Some accountability has to be taken by the Republicans who were in charge when the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed because there was no framework in place to prevent anything like this happening. Firewalls need to be replaced that once existed in the Glass-Steagall Act. There needs to be a curbing of the "wildly excessive compensation" (Dorgan) for CEOs on Wall Street. The figures that people earn in bonuses is staggering. The regulation of "speculative investments by hedge funds and investment banks" also needs to be in place. For that to take place, special interest groups in Washington, lobbyists, need to be shown their place because they have a vested interest in the future of their companies. The lobbyist's influence on Congress is just as toxic as the speculative investments Wall Street has been making.

Currently, the House of Representatives is hammering out the details of this bail-out plan in which the government will buy these toxic mortgages at a low dollar value. They hope to turn it into capital gains after the economy picks up the slack later on. The economy will bounce back, but how strong? Couldn't what the government involved in be called speculation, the same as what those investors on Wall Street are so ardently blamed for? Essentially the bail-out plan calls for 250 billion dollars up front to address the need, and then a gradual filtering in of monies to total 700 billion dollars.

At the time of the blog, the U.S. House of Representatives failed to pass the legislation.

So how does all of this affect the current race for President? The Republicans were the policy makers at the time that the deregulation of the Glass-Steagall Act occurred. Overall, the shaky ground of the economy has been blamed on the Republicans. Eight years of fiscal irresponsibility has chided a great many voters who see our economic outlook as a direct result of policies and procedures that the Republican party has perpetuated. That is not to say that al the Democrats are innocent. The Democrats have had their hands dirty in this as well and it takes a majority, not a minority, for a bill to pass. But the Democrats are not seen as the ones who've been in charge. The Democratic Party is the one selling itself to the public on the basis of Obama's call for change on the beltway. Both candidates agree that change is necessary. Either candidate that wins the race will have on his desk a mountain of responsibility to set right our economy, and face a task so monumental that it hasn't been seen since FDR's Presidency.

With the Bailout plan rejected by the U.S. House of Representatives, the future is even more uncertain and the stock market has plummeted. How this will play out for either party is anyone's guess, but it does seem to work in the Democrat's favor.

Why So Short? An Analysis of President Bush's Endorsement of John McCain at the RNC

2008-09-29T06:30:00.000-07:00

Without directly saying it, Senator John McCain has tried to disassociate himself, as a candidate from President George W. Bush and his administration. The past eight years have left American citizens confused and disappointed. President Bush’s approval ratings have reached an all time low. Senator John McCain has used this situation to advance his standing in the election. While many Americans have become turned off with Bush’s policies and governing tactics, it is not the Republican platform they have lost faith in, but the current man representing the Republican ideology. Senator John McCain’s campaigning strategies have consisted of setting himself apart from President Bush by stating his ability to handle policy and party ideology in a more responsible way. His forums and media appearances tell a tale of good politics in the Republican Party that have been misused. By using this tactic McCain has expressed and idea that American’s should not loose faith in the party’s politics but the man running the politics. My taking this approach he is giving voters to maintain their loyalty to the Republican Party.
Clearly President Bush and Senator John McCain have had discussions about the best strategy to get McCain elected into office. McCain has individually attempted to separate himself from Bush and his presidency but the media has also played a role in the presence of President Bush since this election cycle began. Since the beginning of the 2008 election cycle there have been fewer appearances in the media of President Bush and those appearances have been shorter and far more controlled. There could be hundreds of theories about why this is so, but I believe the McCain campaign and the Bush administration have strategically worked together to highly control Bush’s rhetoric and endorsements of John McCain for President.
For example, let’s discuss and analyze President Bush’s address at the Republican National Convention. The presence of Hurricane Gustav prevented Bush from appearing in St. Paul, which in my opinion actually benefited John McCain. The mere presence of Bush at the Convention could have given McCain too much connection to the failed administration. It was clear that Bush’s endorsement of John McCain for President needed to emphasize his individuality and uniqueness to the Republican Party. Bush’s goal was to disassociate McCain from the typical party divisions and address his ability and willingness to cross party lines, something the Bush administration has not been concerned with over the last eight years.
Polls show that Laura Bush’s approval ratings are higher than her husband’s. The Republican Party’s base maintains their loyalty to the Bush administration but the independents and moderates are weary of voting for a candidate that has close similarities to President Bush. Therefore Bush’s speech needed to divert attention away from himself and onto the future candidate that can truly unite the party. Laura Bush’s introduction to the President was highly controlled and she only addressed the positive outcomes from his administration. Voters usually notice the negatives more than the positives. Laura’s goal was to communicate to the audience that advancements in American culture did happen under her husband’s presidency, and then associate those positive policies with McCain’s capability to do the same in the future.
One of the biggest shockers of the 2008 Republican National Convention was how short President Bush’s endorsement of John McCain was. Did the McCain campaign purposefully allocate a limited about of time for Bush to speak because they don’t what to emphasis the magnitude of their relationship? Or was it the Bush administration that chose to limit his message in time and rhetoric? Which ever option it may be President Bush’s speech used rhetoric that disaffiliated John McCain’s politics from his own. Obama’s campaign has been emphasizing change from the start of his candidacy, but after Bush’s endorsement at the RNC the public saw for the first time McCain’s capacity for change. Senator Obama’s won voters over by addressing the failed Republican policies and how change to a Democratic administration is the only resolution to the problem. President Bush’s rhetoric manipulated the idea of change to present McCain as the only candidate that has the capacity to save a failed system that evolved from his own party.
The theme of the evening was “Country First” which allowed Bush to discuss McCain’s military service as a prerequisite for the presidency. Bush used McCain’s maverick status to illustrate that he would not back down against the “angry left”. I believe this communication tactic served two purposes. First it alluded to the idea that McCain’s intent is to satisfy the majority of Americans and if it comes to him disagreeing with the current President, Bush, he wouldn’t think twice about doing that. Second it painted a picture of Democrats as being unwilling to cross party lines to work for the greater good. This appealed to moderates and independents because they want a leader that will put petty politics aside and get things done.
Ultimately I believe President Bush’s endorsement of Senator John McCain at the Republican National Convention strived to identify McCain as the only candidate that can stand up to political pressures. Bush briefly commented that when John McCain disagrees with a policy or path of action he will let you know. He alluded to the idea that McCain had stood up to him before when he disagreed wit Bush’s politics. This was a great communication tactic because it disproved the belief that John McCain follows suit with President Bush. Whether or not Bush’s endorsement speech achieved what it was supposed too, it’s interesting to analyze why the President’s appearance at the 2008 RNC was so short and controlled. The political strategists behind these speeches know exactly how to manipulate the audience, media, the candidate’s and the President in order to produce an outcome they desire.

The expectations game

2008-09-28T17:21:00.001-07:00

The Obama campaign is working to lower expectations in typical fashion to set itself for victory in the vice presidential debate this Thursday, October 2. Campaign manager David Plouffe told reporters Saturday that Governor Sarah Palin is "a terrific debater" and "a skilled speaker" who will compete well in Thursday's debate. This tactic is meant to raise expectations for the opponent, Palin, thus encouraging a better impression of Biden's performance at the debate. This move by the Obama campaign seems a little obvious, but it might be especially necessary to play up Palin's abilities. If Biden is too aggressive toward her he could get zinged with a new load of sexist accusations from the McCain camp.

Yes? No? Maybe so?

2008-09-26T17:25:00.000-07:00

Are they simply ignorant people who don’t follow the issues? Are they still ‘weighing their risks’? Are they waiting on the debating? Or Are their minds already made up? With only 39 days until the Presidential Election, the candidates are on a mad rush to gain support from undecided voters. These questions are all in reference to the logic of an undecided voter.

Are undecided voters simply ignorant people who don’t follow the issues?
Jonah Goldberg of The National Review followed the 2000 campaign and election season and voiced his opinions on the issue of undecided voters in an article called, “The Undeciding Factor.” Referring to these citizens and their indecision as a “scandal” Goldberg deemed them “America’s least-informed voters.” Through the word usage of his article it is clear that this author does not have a very high opinion of the “undecided.” However, Goldberg also references briefly why undecided voters are for the most part undecided—because they are searching for specifics. These voters are waiting to hear every last detail of each candidate’s position on the various issues of the election. Goldberg says that the campaigns and the media “treat the least engaged and least serious voters with the highest regard” (30). Goldberg believes that the average undecided voter is a “latecomer” (31) and spends the majority of the election season not paying attention to the campaigns and then has a hard time catching up. Goldberg makes it clear that he finds it ironic that our candidates end up basing their whole campaign on attracting undecided voters who are oblivious and unaware.

Are undecided voters still ‘weighing their risks’?
Alexis Simendinger quotes democratic pollster Mark Mellman in National Journal Magazine, “People are more worried about what they have to lose; what’s the greater risk?” (1). If people are still weighing their risks then what is it going to take to ease their mind and help them choose? Goldberg and Liz Sidoti from ABC News.com believe that there is a possibility that the voters are waiting on something specific.

Are undecided voters waiting on the debating?
Goldberg from The National Review, believes that the undecideds are waiting on debates supposedly to decide who to support but once again believes that this is simply an excuse for not following the news prior to the debates. Sidoti quotes undecided voter Peggy Cacia from Orlando, Florida, “‘I want to see what happens’ during a domestic policy debate next month to hear more about what Obama has to say on the economy” (2).

Are undecided voters minds already made up?
National Geographic News’ Stefan Lovgren says yes. Whether undecided voters think that they are undecided or not, national geographic reports: studies show that voters already know who their vote is going to because of “automatic mental associations” that the people have in their minds. The types of associations that people have may be any thing from “ethnicity” to “age” (1). Clearly, this means that due to the fact that people already have unconscious biases in their minds, they cannot help but lean one way or another in an election because of the candidates’ individual characteristics.

What causes undecided voters break and is it certain issues that make a difference?
Arguably, this years Presidential Elections most dominant and influential issue is the economy—is this the issue stance undecided voters are waiting to hear more details about, the economy? If this is true, each candidate will have to convince undecided voters that they have the best plan for America’s broken economy in order for these voters to break and decide. Liz Sidoti of says, “The key to unlocking the support of persuadable voters may be this: convincing them that one candidate alone has the ability to identify, understand and fix the country’s ills, especially the economy” (2).

What does Maverick mean to you?

2008-09-26T15:10:00.000-07:00

When John McCain ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, nobody doubted his maverick identity. He also lost to the charming George W. Bush. When he began to campaign again for the presidential nomination for 2008, he learned from the past and began to embrace more mainstream Republican views. He strove to distance himself from his old maverick reputation and began to present himself more as a compassionate conservative, like Bush had in 2000. Now, he has managed to pull the maverick theme back into his campaign without alienating the conservative base. He has transformed the image of a maverick into an appealing-to-Republicans image of reformer who will cut government spending.

The Maverick

In McCain's maverick days, he probably caused the most controversy among Republicans with regard to taxes. In 1998, McCain angered Senate Republicans when he supported a tax on cigarettes. Republicans and tobacco industry allies called the regulations bill the “McCain Tax.” In 2001 only two Senate Republicans voted against Bush’s tax cuts, and John McCain was one of them. A quote on the 2001 tax cuts sounds strangely similar to something Barack Obama would say today: "I'd like to see much more of this tax cut shared by working Americans… I think it still devotes too much of it to the wealthiest Americans." Again, in 2003, he was opposed to the tax cuts. "Most of the economists view this as primarily benefiting wealthier Americans," McCain said on CNBC at the time. "There's a theory, I think, that's prevalent -- it was true in the 2001 tax cuts -- that if you give it to the wealthy people, then they will then, you know, create jobs, et cetera. The interesting thing to me is that most economists will tell you that it's the middle-income Americans that have been keeping the economy afloat." These comments go against a prominent conservative belief that the wealthy will share their money and boost the economy.

During his 2000 campaign he also notoriously called Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson “agents of intolerance.” It was speculated that this was a strategic attempt to set himself apart from his opponent, incumbent George W. Bush. McCain’s other well-known maverick trait is his activism for campaign finance reform. In 2001, he was co-author of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, BCRA, or McCain-Feingold.

What changed?

Since embarking on his presidential campaign in, McCain has reversed his position on the Bush tax cuts and supports making them permanent. In 2006, he voted to extend the tax cuts. In general he has begun to support tax policies more central to conservative beliefs that he formerly opposed. He also gave the commencement speech at Falwell’s college, Liberty University, and spoke about forgiveness and respect for opponents, among other things, to try to heal any wounds left from his scathing remarks in 2000. He has also distanced himself from seemingly drastic campaign finance reform activism that Republicans see as invasive, although ethics and lobbying reform is still a major part of his platform.

The Palin Effect

With the introduction of Sarah Palin as his vice presidential nominee, a hard-line conservative who also claims the title of reformer, McCain has enabled a way to use his maverick identity without causing the old controversy among his supporters. Top campaign advisor Charles Black said in August 2008 that the switch from maverick to conservative back to maverick was entirely planned. “It was always going to have to be part of our campaign for the general election,” he said, although it is possible that the campaign simply realized that running as an experienced war hero was not working to pull far enough ahead of Barack Obama. Palin was the perfect pick to allow that move. Her rhetoric of reform at her acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention provided the ideal introduction of McCain the new maverick. She was effective because she introduced the theme of reform as limiting government by decreasing taxes and reducing spending, disassociating reform from what some conservatives see as McCain’s radical independent streak. The choice of Sarah Palin, completely unconventional and unexpected, also played to McCain’s advantage. It portrayed him as a maverick who doesn’t follow convention, but who also doesn’t stray from conservative ideals.

So why is McCain’s image as a maverick so important? First of all, he needs to, and largely has, separated himself from George Bush. McCain has been able to dodge some of Obama’s harshest criticisms that his election will be Bush’s third term by emphasizing his identity as a Republican maverick. More than anything, though, is the importance of the independent vote in this close election. A recent Gallup poll from September 8, 2008 showed McCain leading among independent voters. According to the poll, 40% independent voters supported McCain before the Republican National Convention, and then 52% supported him after. However, a more recent poll from Gallop shows that only 3% of his volunteers are voting for him because he can bring about change. The bulk of his supporters are still more likely to cite his experience for their reasons for choosing him. In order to win, McCain will have to court stout Republicans, as well as continue his appeal to independents.

Will the young vote actually make a difference in '08?

2008-09-26T12:01:00.000-07:00

This election year it seems as though its all about the young vote, but will it actually make a difference? The 18-29 year old demographic is relatively small, however. According to the Slate, "To change the entire election, they'd have to be double their size," says Joe Trippi, Howard Dean's campaign manager in 2004. Although most of the "young vote" is said to support Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, it would still be difficult to tell if this specific demographic would actually make the difference to winning the race to the White House.

Rock the Vote is one of the most well known nonpartisan campaigns that aims to encourage young and new voters to register and become more politically active. Their statistics say that the 18-29 year old demographic voted 103 percent more in the primaries and caucuses than in 2004. What an increase! Does this mean they will actually make it out on November 4th?

A Rock the Vote poll says that 50 percent of young adults identified themselves as Democrats, whereas only 29 percent declared Republican. According to the Arizona Republic online, although the number of young adult registration has skyrocketed, young voters still have a relatively low participation rate compared to their elder counterparts. Therefore, if the youngsters sleep in on election day it could actually favor the Republican party.

Young voters ages 18-20 are more likely swayed to the views of their parents and what others think about the election. Some news and political junkies, like ourselves, are researched and have an opinion. But this group has hardly figured out themselves, much less their thoughts on foreign policy and the economy. When the demographic hits the 21-29 phase, young adults are in their first jobs and actually seeing the tax cuts coming out of their pay checks - definitely a passionate reality check that will send them to the polls. Other issues, however hit closer to home. According to the Tennessee Journal online, A Youth Vote Coalition survey says that the top three issues among voters are terrorism, the economy and crime.

What about Sarah Palin? It seems as though McCain's VP selection "has energized the young Republican group, "according to Celinda Lake, a Democratic political strategist. Lake also said that a poll shows "they were more excited to elect the first female president than they were to elect the first Black president." Interesting. This, of course, came from Republicans, but since this is such a historical election it's a good point. Do young voters, the next generation of leaders, want to see a female vice president "a heart beat away from the presidency," or the first African-American president? We'll find out in 38 days!

So what have the candidates been doing differently to cater to their younger audiences? Social networks like Facebook and MySpace have become big media outlets. Obama has incorporated text messaging, making a point to announce his VP nominee, Joe Biden. Last summer, McCain held numerous YP4McCain events, which hosted young professionals cocktail hour-type fundraisers. YouTube has become a major player with the younsters as well. At both conventions there were numerous YouTube booths set up for anyone to voice their opinion about the elections. Also, this year for the first time both parties held a CNN-YouTube debates, in which users were able to submit a video and CNN aired the question and had the candidate answer it. I think this was a particularly smart move. Millions are on YouTube daily, in fact that is probably where most watch the debates because they are too busy to watch during air time. The fact that anyone could post a question from their home, gives a sense of true involvement with little effort. For those first-timers who are getting involved, CNN put together the League of First Time Voters. At the conventions, members were given t-shirts saying "you'll never forget your first time." In an online forum, league members can discuss and learn about current issues and how to register to vote.

So, where does the celebrity endorsement factor into the young voters? With the Internet, YouTube and Entertainment TV covering the election, celebrity endorsements are popping out everywhere. The McCain camp has slammed Obama for his celebrity status, yet I think the young voters pay attention to this. If you think about it, an 18 year old is a senior in high school most likely favors celebrity opinion. Obama supporters include Oprah Winfery, Matt Damon, George Clooney, and Scarlet Johannson among others. For some, it makes a statement about Obama's character...for others, they're just entertainment endorsements.

Polls show Obama is the favorite of the young vote, but when it comes down to it, will the rise in registrations make a difference? 38 days, and we'll find out.

The Bradley Effect, 2008

2008-09-26T10:16:00.000-07:00

Over 26 years ago the Sunshine State made waves across the national landscape, rocking the racial boat. In 1982, Los Angeles Mayor, Tom Bradley, ran as the Democratic Party's candidate for California Governor. His opponent being Republican George Deukmejian. In policy these candidates aligned with their parties, but on screen their place on the political spectrum was not the only difference. Bradley is African American and Deukmejian a white American. Polls during the final days of the election indicated Bradley with the lead, even the exit polls predicted Bradley as the winner. When the dust settled, Bradley lost the race by over 50,000 votes.

The phenomenon of poll-takers saying that race does not effect their decision to choose a minority candidate, minority candidates in the lead during the final days of an election, and then the election outcome favoring the majority candidate is known as the Wilder Effect. But after the shocking results of the California election, Bradley's name was lovingly attached to this phenomenon for the next several decades.

The Bradley Effect has waxed and waned in sate and national elections since then.
During the 1990 Gubernatorial election in North Carolina, African-American Democratic candidate, Harvy Gantt, was leading his opponent, Republican Jesse Helms, by four to six points. After election night, Helms won by four points.
But in Tenessee's 2006 Senate race, Harold Ford Jr. ran against Bob Corker, the white candidate. In this case, the exit polls were in line with the pre-election polls. How white voters said they would vote before the election matched closely with the results of the election.
Race being a determining factor in any election is subject to several compounding factors, but the topic never seems to go away, as it shouldn't.

This cycle, the topic of the Bradley effect was hottest during the primaries when Clinton and Obama were vying for the Democratic nomination. In California, Obama had a significant lead over Clinton, but Clinton won by 9 striking percentage points (Clinton 52%, Obama 43%). A similar pattern occurred in the New Hampshire primary this year. Obama held the lead in polls by 13 points before the primary, but Clinton took New Hampshire with a narrow 39% to Obama's 37%. In contrast to these events, Obama took the lead in polls in Iowa as well as the caucus. This could be because Iowa hold caucuses while New Hampshire and California hold primaries. The difference is a public caucus, where community members can see for whom their neighbors vote, versus a private choice in a voting booth.

The Bradley Effect is widely attributed to the psychological desire of voters and poll-takers to appear unprejudice. During a public caucus, citizens are more careful to hide their prejudices by voting for minority candidates even if they privately do not support them. The same pattern occurs during polling. When poll-takers are asked whether or not the race of a candidate would effect their vote, the poll-takers say that it would not in order to avoid sounding racist. This is especially true if the pollster is a minority and the poll-taker is white.

In a nation-wide Gallup poll, 78 percent of black Americans said that Obama's race will not effect their vote, while 88 percent of white Americans say the same. It is counterintuitive that more white Americans would not let race influence their decision than black Americans. Then, poll-takers were asked a series of other questions about race. In particular, they were asked if Obama's race would give him more votes than it would lose him. 47 percent of white voters said that it would "make little difference." But 25 percent of white voters said that it would cost Obama more votes than would give him. Such a striking number of white voters said that their personal decision would not be influence by race, but 25 percent of white voters believe that other voters would not vote for him because of race. The results of this poll point curiously to the psychology of polling. It seems to indicate the typical paradigm that "I am not a racist, but everyone else is." Poll-takers are unlikely to admit their own prejudices so it is difficult to rely on polls to determine if race will truly play a role in the upcoming election.

Another poll from AP-Yahoo asked poll-takers quesitons about their perceptions of black Americans. With word-indicators such as "criminals" or "lazy" used by white Democrats, the poll states that many voters are still racist and this will effect their vote in the general election. However, it is easier to stereotype a group than an individual. We do not often consider our minority neighbors to be "one of them." Obama is an individual who has worked hard to make a common connection with all American regardless of race. This poll is not a good indicator that Obama's race will effect voters' decisions.

While some say that the Bradley Effect is a huge risk for Obama, others believe that the phenomenon is just a myth or that polling is too flawed regardless of race to determine if race will influence an election. Other factors muddle polling, not just race. These include the increased use of cell phones and new voters – which pollster cannot reach.

The national polls show Obama and McCain at very close margins. Several major issues in the U.S. right now indicate that if Obama were white, the race would not be so close today. With the economy in shambles, Bush's approval rates below 30 percent and a majority of Americans opposing our involvement in Iraq, McCain's party affiliation with the current administration, on whom the American public lays blame for these issues, should bring him father behind Obama.

When election day comes, even if Obama is in the lead in national and state polls, viewers and media must be cautious to trust the numbers. The true racial sentiments of voters will not be apparent until all the votes are counted.

Economic Crisis Shaping Camapaigns

2008-09-26T10:13:00.000-07:00

It is obvious that the economy has become the number one issues of both the Obama and McCain campaigns. With President Bush proposing a $700 million bail-out for a failing Wall Street, both of the senators are being forced to take a firm stance on their own economic plans. They are also having to form strategies for dealing with this mess if they are elected president in the next four months. The economic issue could make or break either campaign.

On Wednesday, McCain announced that he would be postponing his campaigning in order to give his undivided attention to this crisis. He asked Senator Obama to join him in this suspension, including postponing the first scheduled Presidential Debate on Friday, September 26. The Washington Post reports Obama’s response to McCain’s idea as being somewhat of a challenge. "It's my belief that this is exactly the time when the American people need to hear from the person who in approximately 40 days will be responsible for dealing with this mess," said Obama. "Part of the president's job is to deal with more than one thing at once."

However, the only way for voters to decide who they want in charge of this crisis and its aftermath is to compare the Obama and McCain strategies and look at how their campaigns are responding to the situation under increasing pressure.

Both Senator McCain and Senator Obama are struggling to deal with this economic crisis. The Seattle Times reports, “Both candidates are struggling with the fallout from a financial crisis that neither had foreseen. Obama conceded that as president he might be compelled to defer pieces of his $130-billion-a-year spending plan if the economy worsens. McCain has been forced to re-examine his long-held view that free-market solutions work best and is calling for tougher regulation.” Both campaigns are being forced to alter their previous economic strategies in order to incorporate a new plan for dealing with Wall Street failings. Both candidates have acknowledged that this problem will affect every American citizen; thus, any government action must keep in mind not only the interests of Wall Street, but of Main Street as well. Obama and McCain have also expressed their concern with President Bush’s current proposal, specifically the broad power it would give to the secretary of treasury. Both candidates are in favor of some sort of independent council or board that would oversee all aspects of the bailout. The candidates are also expressing great concern for tax payers and the possible harm this bailout could cause them, insisting that there must be some sort of protection built in to Bush’s proposal. Both McCain and Obama have also made statements that Wall Street executives should not be allowed excessive compensation as a result of the bailout.

Despite similarities, the campaigns still differ significantly in many aspects. The Seattle Times reports, “Obama said he would like to see an economic-stimulus package for families struggling to pay bills and stave off foreclosure. McCain, at a Dow Corning solar-panel factory in Freeland, Mich., made it clear he would not support such a stimulus package. ‘I don't think anything should be added to this legislation,’ he said. ‘This legislation should stand on its own.’ ” McCain also said he will seek ‘basic improvements’ to the legislation as it moves forward. The legislation, he said, needs a "path for taxpayers to recover the money." With an estimated price tag of approximately $10,000 for each American family, McCain said that "that money cannot simply go into a black hole of bad debt with no means of recovering any of the funds." However, even in the light of these campaign strategies taken by both Obama and McCain, they will still be pressed to make a definite decision on Bush’s proposal.

In President Bush’s address to the nation Wednesday night, he painted a dire picture of America’s financial and economic standing and called for action from congress. The Associated Press reports, “President Bush said Wednesday that lawmakers risk a cascade of wiped-out retirement savings, rising home foreclosures, lost jobs and closed businesses if they fail to act on a massive financial rescue plan.” The president was quoted as saying, “Our entire economy is in danger…Without immediate action by Congress, America could slip into a financial panic and a distressing scenario would unfold." Bush delivered this message in a 12-minute prime-time address delivered from the White House East Room, hoping that his words would help rescue the highly contested bailout package. "Ultimately, our country could experience a long and painful recession…We must not let this happen,” said Bush. In response to this message, both Obama and McCain have made public statements as they prepare to head for Washington to meet with the president.

As reported by the Associated Press, McCain was quoted saying, “It has become clear that no consensus has developed to support the administration's proposal," he said. "I do not believe that the plan on the table will pass as it currently stands, and we are running out of time." This sense of urgency accompanied McCain to the White House today as he met with House Republicans before heading into a meeting with both President Bush and Senator Obama. As reported by CNN, “McCain told ABC News on Thursday night that Republicans ‘have legit concerns. Some of those have already been satisfied, such as accountability and oversight board and CEO executive pay. Members are aware of the crisis situation that we are in.’ ” By the end of the meeting this evening, it seems that the final proposal is still up in the air.
So, how is this crisis affecting both campaigns? It seems that the American people are favoring Obama in terms of economic reform. The Washington Post reports, “in a new Washington Post/ABC News survey released on Wednesday, Obama led McCain 52 percent to 43 percent, an edge largely built on the increase in the number of voters who believe the Illinois senator is best positioned to handle the economic crisis. A survey also released Wednesday from Fox News/Opinion Dynamics showed Obama with a 45 percent to 39 percent lead -- a significant improvement from a poll done by the same organization earlier this month that put McCain ahead by three points.” Additionally, young voters are questioning where they stand in this crisis as well. Many young voters, especially those struggling to pay of student loans, know that this crisis is going to affect them in a major way. The Washington Wire reports that Obama is leading amongst younger voters as a new poll shows. “Obama leads John McCain, 56% to 29%, among 18 to 29 year-olds, according to a Rock the Vote poll, conducted with The Tarrance Group and Lake Research Partners.”

It seems that this crisis is going to define this election cycle whether the candidates like it or not. The question is, who will come out on top?

OSPD...

2008-09-26T10:04:00.000-07:00

There has always been and will always be intrigue with American Culture. Politics is like Hollywood. Hollywood calls them paparazzi DC calls them the press poll. In essence, they are they same entity existing for the sole purpose of fulfilling the public’s need for scoop.

Americans want to feel in the loop. Our obsession with instant gratification has created a society that needs blackberry vacation services for executive travelers. Stop the madness…

I wholeheartedly admit that I am a part of this “need to know now” generation. When I feel helpless because my wireless connection isn’t working or I make a Law and Order-esque appeal to my dad for my need, as a 21-year-old college student, for a PDA or iPhone it infuriates me. What has created this monster inside of me? Helpless far from it! I am an intelligent young woman with nothing but the whole future looking at me and yet without the net I feel totally incapacitated.

People in politics, I have come to realize, are a different breed. I felt like an outsider at the Republican National Convention without a PDA. These politicos’ obsession for connection reaches past the point of health into the realm of utter absurdity. I recently sat next to a woman on a flight who what attempting to work off of three screens, a cell phone, blackberry and laptop. What is really that important?

Media’s metamorphosis over the last 30 years has completely altered how Presidential elections are run. Traditionally, individuals held pressers, town halls and meet ’n’ greets. They invited specified members of the press and called it a day. The advent and widespread accessibility of the Internet allowed for mass media globalization.

Spending last summer working abroad in London, taught me a lot about a global intrigue with the USA. Every morning I would pick up a paper and coffee from the same stand. I remember being shocked by the amount of coverage on America from Hollywood to politics. One particular morning the clerk asked me, “So you’re for Obama, right?” I was totally taken back, didn’t this man know you never talk about politics or religion?!?! Before answering the question I asked him why he though to ask me and he said, “You are an American and you are young isn’t backing Barack the ‘cool’ thing to do?” Ahh MTV politics…

It was not long after this first incident that I would find myself being regularly confronted with questions, comments and concerns pertaining to American politics. I guess with my blonde hair and blue eyes I must have looked the part or was it something more? Brits constantly chat on their mobile phones truth be know the underground is the only place that’s truly quiet most days. In an effort to try to assimilate to London culture I followed every perceived culture norm possible. One day when I was approached and asked a question about the United States presidential race, I asked him why he thought I was American. He answered, “Because you talk like George Bush.”

Until this trip, I was unaware of the magnitude of the US’s global superpower status. Fact is the commoners I met and shared political banter were in most cases better versed on the topics than my American friends. This is why it came as no surprise to me that many of my RSS feeds on the election came from international sources.

United Kingdom journalists have a knack for infusing some kind of humor to tie into editorial pieces. The majority of Bristish “news” could be considered editorial by American standards due to the obvious journalist slant or bias. As I glance over guardian.co.uk’s homepage, their commitment to following the race for America’s Commander in Chief is evident, the third tab option directs readers to “US Elections.” Although many in the UK consider this paper a “rag” – it is a free publication handed out during rush hour in the underground. It reaches an enormous audience providing the opportunity to be a highly effective news source. The international audience appears to adore Obama. One day, I counted his name over 50 times in one of the “light” London papers.

The Blogging Effect

Google Alerts, RSS feeds and mindless net surfing allow for anyone anywhere to be “educated” and a journalist. This election will be the first where blogging could have an impact. According to the Communications director at the Republican National Convention, there were 200 requests from bloggers for media credentialing at the 2008 convention.

I have witnessed first hand the impact of these bloggers. I am currently receiving google alerts and RSS feed for the states I am covering for my class election project. Some of the states are more obscure and attract less attention than others. I can always chart a slow election news day in Idaho or Rhode Island due to the fact that my RSS and alerts are filled with blog entries not bonified news stories.

We all know that a picture is worth a thousand words. With all of the current media styling direct exposure like proves to be more effective than newspaper coverage (Denton and Kuypers 2008). It can be surmised from their research that increased online video ad blog sites create a larger forum for analysis and interpretation. The more information that’s available for voters the better.

Although feeds may be void of breaking news, certain blogs boring, and few validate videos to view, I recognize this Southern Methodist University coed has developed a new obsession …OPSD…obsessive political scoop disorder…let’s face it, I am a American voter who is a poster person that never wants to be out of the loop.

Negative Ads, Do They Work?

2008-09-26T08:26:00.000-07:00

At this point in the presidential campaign, negative ads are everywhere. You can see Obama compared to Hollywood celebrities like Paris Hilton and Britney Spears (view here) and McCain side by side with President Bush implying “more of the same”(view here). Voters are bombarded by these ads, but do they really work?

Research
Although many Americans complain about the use of negative ads and “mudslinging”, research has proven that this actually mobilizes voters to the polls. In a study by Martin P. Wattenberg and Craig L. Brians it was found that negative campaign advertising actually mobilized voters even when they disapproved of the messages. When people in the study were asked if they remembered any presidential campaign ads on TV during the 1992 cycle, the overwhelming response was just a general consensus that there was too much negative advertising. However, 82% of those that complained turned up to vote as compared to 76% who did not offer that criticism (1996).

In an article by ThisNation.com it is stated that while many voters do approve of the widespread use of negative campaigning, they are nonetheless affected by it because of the information they receive. However, the viewer was only more influenced by the information if the message was conceived as relevant to the campaign. Some of the issues presented that viewers deemed irrelevant included lack of military service, past personal financial problems, actions of a candidate’s family member, or past alcohol or drug abuse.

Another research study by Ken Goldstein and Paul Freedman used the 1996 election cycle and the 1996 National Election Study to prove their hypothesis that negative campaign ads stimulate voter turnout (2002). Goldstein and Freedman find that an average white female with no mobilizing contacts from parties will have a .761 probability of voting. When exposed to negative campaign ads however, her likelihood of voting increases to .789.

Why Does it Work?
New technology helps keep negative advertising in line. Journalists are much more likely to check the facts on the behalf of the public and keep the candidates honest. In this sense, the media helps facilitate the democratic process because the voters can receive both good and bad information on a candidate in order to make a more knowledgeable decision.

Today the response time of a candidate to an attack ad is much shorter. There is great importance on a quick turnaround to the oponent’s ad and technology like satellites can help provide a counter ad in a matter of hours. David Doak, in Winning Elections, says it is important to have someone on the campaign team that can listen to the audio tracks from each day of ads on the media market to be able to respond quickly to what the opponent is saying.

These two things make negative advertising seem more appropriate to the American public. By having someone hold the candidates accountable for their words greatly impacts how much attention viewers pay to the ads. And by giving the candidates a way to efficiently respond to attacks makes the campaign game seem more fair and less damaging.

This Election
So what are voters saying about this election? Many commentaries, such as the one by Darrell West on CNN.com, are saying that this election cycle of campaigns are breaking the patterns of past elections. West claims the ads between McCain and Obama are making many more false statements, taking quotes out of context, and lied about personal background. He also suggests voters should use websites like factcheck.org to make sure they receive accurate information.

The New York Times ran an article citing a new NY Times/CBS News poll that found 56% of voters think Obama is spending his time making clear what he would do as president but only 38% thought McCain was discussing what he would do and 53% thought McCain was spending his time attacking Obama.

If negative ads do in fact have a positive correlation to voter turnout, there should be a record number of voters and the ads observed now will only help to stimulate turnout. However, only the election in November will help prove this.

Inside the campaigns: Steve Schmidt and David Plouffe

2008-09-26T08:06:00.001-07:00

The heads of the McCain and Obama campaigns play a crucial role, including the strategy and image. In taking a closer look inside the personal lives, political careers, and campaign styles of Steve Schmidt and David Plouffe differences in the campaigns this election cycle can be better understood.

David Plouffe, Barack Obama’s campaign manager, has been a Democratic Party campaign consultant for many years In 2000, he joined AKP&D Message and Media, a campaign consulting firm, where he is a partner. Prior to joining AKP&D, Plouffe had 10 years of political experience. He worked for Senator Tom Harkin’s re-election campaign in 1990, worked as a state field director for Senator Harkin’s Presidential campaign in 1992, and also in 1992 he managed Congressman John Olver’s re-election campaign. Plouffe managed Attorney General Charles Oberly’s campaign for Senate in 1994, was campaign director for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in 1995, and in 1996 managed Bob Torricelli’s US Senate campaign. In 1997 and 1998 he served as the Deputy Chief of Staff for Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt. From 1999 to 2000, Plouffe led a national campaign with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee that raised a record amount of contributions for House races across the United States. Plouffe’s experience with Obama began in 2004 when he worked on Obama’s Senatorial campaign.

An article in Newsweek titled "The Details Man: David Plouffe" gave insight to Plouffe's campaign expertise and strategy for the Obama 2008 Presidential campaign. Newsweek calls Plouffe "the campaigns organizational mastermind" and described him as a "quiet, tightly wound campaign manager". Plouffe came up with the state-by-state strategy that Obama's campaign has executed and he also oversees the entire operation of the campaign. Although he is in a well-known and highly publicized position, Plouffe is one to be behind the scenes and is very shy. However, one of his friends told Newsweek that he "commands attention". The article and other coverage on Plouffe notes that his previous experiences served him well in the Obama campaign, where Iowa is a key state. Plouffe, as previously mentioned, had worked for the Iowa Senator Tom Harkin's campaign, which made him familiar with the state and also gave him an understanding of how critical the Iowa caucus was. Plouffe has been the strategist for Obama's campaign, and also controls leaks and when information is released, making him significant in the communications of the campaign.

Even though Rick Davis still maintains the title of campaign manager, Steve Schmidt is the main man behind the McCain campaign as the senior campaign strategist and advisor. Schmidt is described by the New York Times as “one of the most intense, hard-driving figures in his party today”. Schmidt has been a well-known figure in the Republican Party for his specialization of political strategy. When McCain needed to revamp the direction of his campaign, it was of no surprise that he would choose Schmidt.

Steve Schmidt experience includes his role as the Communications Director for the Matt Fong for Senate campaign, serving as a chief White House strategist, and spokesperson for Vice President Cheney. He also managed California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s reelection campaign. Along with his experience, he is also well-known in the party for his relationship with former Bush mastermind, Karl Rove.

In the structural change of the McCain campaign, Schmidt will be reporting to campaign manager, Rick Davis. However, Davis will only be overseeing fundraising and he also oversaw the planning for the convention and the selection of the Vice Presidential nominee. According to the Washington Post, Schmidt is in control of of all other campaign logistics. This includes controlling the message, advertising, scheduling, and advance work. Schmidt’s campaign style is described by the Washington Post as “a less bureaucratic campaign structure that will allow for faster decision-making and more outreach to individuals and groups that can be helpful to McCain's cause”. (See full article).

Social Networking and the Election

2008-09-25T23:45:00.000-07:00

With the rise in use of social networking sites, political campaigns have another venue to try and reach out to voters. With over 100 million people on Facebook alone, these sites allow politicians to reach out to a vast number of people. This is also an excellent way to reach out to young voters, which is an important goal of candidates.

There are two key elements of a social networking site that makes it a great communication tool for a campaign. First, it shows a more personal side to the candidate and second, the candidate’s pages are controlled by the campaign, rather than the media.

On a social networking site, a candidate can give out personal information and write special notes to followers and potential supporters. In elections today, people can tend to vote on the personal aspects of a candidate rather than the issues. Here is a Newsweek article which discusses one reason for this tendency. This is the reason it is imperative for a candidate to shape their image into one that not only resembles someone of power and intelligence, but also someone that has morals and values, and can relate to the average person. On a website such as Facebook or Myspace, the candidates are able to get close to supporters in a way that they can’t in other forms of media. While these sites are actually being monitored by a campaign staff member, it is given the appearance that visitors are actually forming a relationship with the candidate himself. There is a connection established by making a candidate your MySpace/Facebook “friend” or by becoming their fan on Facebook. This idea of becoming a Facebook “fan” is also interesting because once someone becomes a fan of a candidate, all of their friends are informed of this fact. As Christine Williams, a political science professor at Bentley College in Massachusetts, says “There's some kind of a subjective quality. You're coming at these kids through their friends, people they trust." (Politico Article) These sites also allow people to give back their own feedback, and by doing so, people feel like they are contributing to the election process. It is this candidate/supporter interaction that makes social networking sites different from other forms of media.

Another key element is that social networking sites are a widely viewed source of media that can be controlled by the campaign. The campaign can post anything from messages to videos and pictures to events and even send reminders to supporters to watch the candidate on t.v. or to get out there and vote!

So the real question is…Does social networking really turn out voters?

When Kinky Friedman ran for Governor of Texas in 2006 against Rick Perry, he won 66 percent of the Facebook poll, while Rick Perry only got 16 percent. However, when the actual election came around, Friedman lost to Perry, only receiving 13 percent of the vote.
These results make it appear as if social networking sites do not have much affect on the general election results. However, social networking has grown since 2006, which could have an effect.
The truth is, we don’t know what is going to happen. Last election there wasn’t much of an effect, but with all the technological advancements, these sites could determine the outcome this time around. We already know that social networking sites are a powerful tool for gathering supporters. What we do not know is how successful they will be in motivating their supporters to act. In the past, the major tv networks have negatively affected voter turnout by inaccurately reporting who is ahead early. If social networking sites do this, voter turnout could be low. (Resource of Social Media Article)

What Are the Candidates Doing?

Both Obama and McCain have Facebook pages. On both pages, you get access to behind the scenes pictures and videos of the candidates. There are also videos put out there by the campaign, such as ads, and also ones smashing the opposing campaigns. Both have posted notes and events, blogs, news and a wall for visitors to write on. Both candidates also have opportunities for people to get involved. Each candidate also has elements specific to his own page. McCain has a link for people to register to vote, to get an online yard sign, a link to find events in your area, and even a McCain Game. McCain currently has 541,568 supporters. Obama also has a link to register to vote, a box which shows his favorite pages (an example is Latinos for Obama), and a box entitled Blueprint for Change: Economy. Obama currently has 1,915,133 supporters. Palin and Biden also have Facebook pages.

Obama and McCain also both have MySpace pages. While McCain’s page is set up in a more distinct, professional way, Obama’s page is set up more like the everyday user’s page. Obama’s page seems to be a lot more interactive than McCain’s. On Obama’s site, there are a lot of little “extras” such as The Obama Store, Obama Mobile (where you can text Obama), and messages from the candidate. Obama currently has 551,649 friends. McCain offers blogs and messages on his page. He currently has 103,151 friends.

Both candidates are part of several other social networking sites, but none offer the reach or the functions that Facebook or MySpace do.

It is interesting to look at what social networking sites offer the candidates. Obama has run a campaign that is about being the young, new, “hip,” candidate who is about change. Social networking sites are a very good fit with his campaign because we view this as a new technology for a younger generation that is changing our society.

Things are a little different for McCain, mainly because of his age. While the age of Facebook and MySpace users are getting older, people still tend to think of social networking as part of a younger generation. Having McCain get involved makes him look like he is trying to engage with his young voters, but at the same time, he still doesn’t seem to fit in. This is why I think McCainBlogette is such a great idea. McCain Blogette is a blog created by Meghan McCain, in which she follows her father on the campaign trail. This is great because it seems natural for Meghan, a 23 year old, to be blogging and she is able to connect to younger voters. Also, there are great behind the scenes pictures of the family, which gives a great personal touch for McCain.

"Billary" for Barack

2008-09-25T18:21:00.000-07:00

The Democratic primaries for this election ripped the party apart. Both Hillary and Obama were huge, historical contenders and the Democratic Party had a difficult decision between the two possible general election candidates. As we all know by now, Obama prevailed over the first-ever major female contender, and ironically, she would remain one of his biggest obstacles to reaching the White House. The country was so divided between the first Black man and the first woman leading the Democratic ticket that the primaries split major contingencies.

When Obama won the primaries, the next step towards the election of a Democratic President was to win over Hillary’s staunch supporters. According to this Gallup poll, Obama grew in ratings with Hillary supporters after the Democratic Convention, proving that the convention was effective in rallying and unifying the party to some extent.

Riding this momentum, “Billary” has hit the road to attempt to unite their party and get Obama elected. Both Clintons had proved successful in gaining the Latino-American vote during their own political careers, so Hillary’s first surrogate appearance for Obama in June 2008 was before the National Association of Latino Elected & Appointed Officials (NALEO). Obama’s current popularity level with Hispanics wins even over Kerry’s 2004 stance and has continued to rise in recent polls.

Bill Clinton has proved more of a liability for Obama on the campaign trail, though. P0litical Humor quotes him as saying:

"I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country. And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics." He was “speaking in North Carolina about a matchup between Hillary Clinton and John McCain, which critics took as an implication that Obama was unpatriotic.” People say what they will.

Still, the Obama camp realizes that Bill Clinton’s endorsement and role as surrogate has the potential to unite the Democratic Party under Barack, but he has been hesitant to do so. A Timesonline.co.uk article quotes a senior Obama aide as saying, “If anybody can put their arms around the party and say we need to be together, it is Bill Clinton.” It goes on to say that Bill may have been initially scarce on Obama’s campaign trail due to bitterness that Hillary did not prevail in the primaries, but that his eventual involvement would be critical to the campaign. This assumption stemmed from the fact that, at first, he “only released a one-sentence statement saying that he will do whatever he can to help the Illinois senator win the election” (Political Ticker). His involvement has not been too substantial since.
The most overt effort of the Clintons to show support for Obama took place at the Democratic National Convention, where both Clintons spoke and Hillary released her delegates with a charged speech. Since this public declaration of support, Hillary has started a campaign called “Hillary Sent Me” to excite her former voters and mobilize the party for Obama. You Decide 2008 wrote that she kicked off this initiative by saying,

“Today I am asking all of you to stand up, hit the road and spread the word that we must elect Barack Obama president and we must send a filibuster-proof majority to Congress […] This is a call to action. This is a must-do. We all have a role. And there is not a moment to lose.” Actions speak louder than words, and Hillary taking on this surrogate role, even after primary defeat, proves she does hope for Democratic victory in November.

Hillary’s main purpose as an Obama surrogate, especially in swing states, is to excite women voters in competition with McCain’s running mate, Sarah Palin, according to Gothamist.com. She has even amended her famous quote from Denver to include Palin’s name: “No way. No how. No McCain. No Palin.” Hillary wants to separate herself from Palin, and a recent SNL skit portrayed this attitude. She campaigns with and for Obama so that her female constituency chooses him over the ticket with a woman on it.

This will be a challenging feat with Palin’s momentum but, according to Politics USA, Hillary could influence the Democratic Party by uniting the left, acting as superstar surrogate, and taking on an attack dog role, which seems to be one of Obama’s lesser priorities.
On the other hand, Bill has been a weaker surrogate. A blog from MSN.com attributes his less significant role in Obama’s campaign to the following reasons: “It’s always about him;” “He likes everyone;” “He’s too analytical;” “He thinks Hillary deserved to win;” and “He determined to be bipartisan.”

Sure, Former President Bill Clinton holds significant power to sway Democratic voters, but he has been more hesitant, even than his former Obama-rival wife Hillary, to give his entire devotion to achieving Obama’s election in the general election. It would be fair to say that Hillary is doing and has done all she can since her primary loss to support the Democratic nominee, but one cannot say the same for Bill.

The race is getting more heated and the November election is sure to be a close one. The Obama campaign should maximize the potential of “Billary” as the election nears. Defeat is in sight if the Democrats do not unite under their candidate. The Clintons can do a better job of encouraging the whole party to back Barack, even without Hillary on the ticket.

The Political Ground Game

2008-09-25T10:19:00.001-07:00

Much can be said of a candidate's success or failure that is dependent upon enacting a successful ground game. The ground game involves several key factors to include opening offices in a battleground state, organizing the campaign, soliciting the help of volunteers, and many more that cannot be fully explicated here.

The current election between McCain and Obama posits unique challenges that both have to deal with. Florida, as it has always been, remains contentious. In all but one battleground state, Florida, Obama has opened more campaign offices than McCain. McCain has a slight advantage in Florida with 56 offices compared to Obama's 42. These offices are critical agents that allow discourse between the candidate, (although indirectly,) and the constituents. These offices allow the image of the presidential candidate to be seen, and it assists in registering voters, possibly even influencing movable voters whose minds have not been made up.

For example, Obama has numerous political contacts in the red state of Texas. For each precinct in Texas there is a Precinct Captain. Each captain can access a database full of voter information such as street addresses. As salon reports, this advantageous use of the internet "frees up field staffers who, in previous campaigns, might have spent hours typing in the same information." This brings up a key point; door to door campaigning is essential.

Candidates must go door to door if they hope to succeed. Of course it isn't plausible that a candidate can do that for every constituent, but with the aid of volunteers the task is better handled. Organization of these volunteers is paramount. An article in the New York Times details the story of an Austin man who "organized neighborhood canvasses, literature drops, and 'visibility campaigns,' where volunteers stand on the street corners and shake signs at motorists." This type of campaigning can greatly increase visibility for a candidate and can increase the candidate's ability to have his message heard.

John McCain initiated a grassroots leadership team in California in August. Much like Obama's Precinct Captains, McCain's campaign employs the use of 58 chairmen who serve the 58 counties in California.

According to Christine Pelosi's Campaign Boot Camp, there are three objectives of a successful field operation; they are as follows: "identify the key demographic groups, geographic areas, or specific individuals who are most likely to support the campaign; repetitively deliver the message to key groups, areas, and individuals in an effort to persuade them to support your effort, and get those identified supporters out to vote on Election Day." (Pelosi, 188) To implement this strategy, a candidate must wage the war on different fronts. Phone banks are one of the most commonly used strategies and hinge heavily upon the sheer volume generated. The distribution of leaflets, literature, and staging outdoor events where people hold signs in support of the candidate is also important. Holding rallies that will stiffen support and can demonstrate the appearance of someone who looks Presidential. A well organized campaign strengthens a candidates image and makes the candidate appear like a natural leader, one people can have trust and faith in. These attributes can make or break a candidate's bid for the White House.

The internet is changing aspects of the ground game in ways many could not have anticipated. The Rolling Stone published an article detailing the changing political landscape. The typical way of campaigning since the 1960s has been to advertise with television and work from there. The technology that is available now is changing all of that. With voters able to register online, a growing community of voters can be contacted and volunteers can more readily be found. The internet is a two-way communication that allows for discourse between the candidate and his followers, unlike the passive one-way communication of television. The internet allows candidates a proactive environment, one that combines both the new technology and the old door to door approach. At every major rally that Obama hosts, voters can get in for free by providing "their e-mail, zip code and telephone number - a practice that continues at every Obama megarally, where it has become routine for him to draw crowds in excess of 20,000" (Rolling Stone) The enormous potential impact of this sort of outreach has historical connotations. If successful, this campaign's strategy to use the internet will be scrutinized and quite possibly implemented in every campaign hereafter.

There is a flip side to all of this grandeur of using the internet to solicit votes. If used too much, the internet can have a crippling effect, just ask Howard Dean. Dean relied on the internet to bolster his voter base too much and neglected to take into account door to door campaigning, a lesson the Obama campaign is aware of. On the internet, personal looks and personality cannot come out. On television nothing is hidden and a person cannot hide their personality. There was an outburst from Howard Dean, perhaps he had been under too much stress, and it circulated the internet and the television networks faster than Dean's campaign could get a lid on it. Ironically, considering the current schtick with Sarah Palin as a hockey mom, David Letterman said "The people of Iowa realized they didn't want a president with the personality of a hockey dad."

Identifying and resonating with an audience is vital to the success of any grassroots campaign. McCain's efforts in Florida have been met with criticism. McCain targeted older Democratic voters. "A letter signed by McCain tells the Democrats: 'We have you registered as a Republican." This has caused some outrage among the party faithful.

Although most of what I found on the internet seemed slanted to the negative for McCain, it must be duly noted that McCain survived the primary season despite having negative remarks made about his abilities. The media was constantly scrutinizing McCain and throughout most of the primary season, McCain wasn't perceived as a front runner. Despite this, McCain has been able to clinch the nomination for President and is competing well with Obama.

Both campaigns, Obama and McCain, are strategically different yet highly motivated. The end result that we see in November will be the determining factor in how well, or how poorly, organized each of these campaigns have been. We've seen what possibilities there are with the advent of internet canvassing and that area will continue to grow and mature.

Remember folks, there's only five more weeks until election day, so get out there and vote!

Expectations and Debates

2008-09-25T08:17:00.000-07:00

This Friday Americans will have their first opportunity to see presidential hopefuls John McCain and Barack Obama formally debate each other at the University of Mississippi with PBS anchor Jim Lehrer moderating. There is much speculation at this point over what the results will be and how each of the candidates will perform, and as the hour draws nearer, the media and even the campaigns themselves will be scrambling to create expectations which will carry over into the actual viewing of the debate. Essentially it is the media who decides the victor on debate night, and their contest begins long before the debate.

The media have become experts at creating hype, often unnecessarily, to serve their own needs. At the September 26, 2007 Democratic presidential debate at Dartmouth College, MSNBC correspondent Monica Novotny declared that, “For most of the candidates, it (the debate) may present the last chance to try to make a dent in the lead enjoyed by the front-runner.” (see full story here) At this time Novotny was referring to her belief that this was the last chance Edwards and Obama had of closing the gap in the polls on the then substantial lead held by Senator Clinton. What she failed to mention however was the additional DNC-sponsored debates, which would be taking place in November and December of that year. These two debates, although DNC-sponsored, would not be broadcast on MSNBC, their presentation rights having been given to other networks.

Obviously from the previous example, the media often make claims to further their own ends. They provide excitement about something that may be meaningless. But above all, the media decides what the candidates must do to win the debate or at least get in the spotlight. According to a "Washington Post" columnist, the debate on Friday provides McCain with “the opportunity to go on offense.” He refers to this debate centered on foreign policy to be in McCain’s “comfort zone” and refers to McCain’s ability with this debate and topic to “take control of the conversation.” He doesn’t refer to a McCain victory as a given, but he does assert McCain’s ability to win as fact.

In a "New York Times" story published earlier this week, John Broder does a little bit of expectation lowering for Obama. In the article, Broder refers to some of Obama’s strengths such as his “reasoning skills” and “youthful cool,” and states that these have not always served him well in formal debates. Broder also alludes to Obama’s tendency to “overintellectualize and lecture,” due in large part to his training as a lawyer, and expresses the opinion that this poses some vulnerability as Obama heads into the debate Friday night. In the past Obama has not excelled at debates in this format, although reporters say they have definitely seen an improvement since his first debates at the presidential level.

In another article published earlier this week in the "New York Times," reporter Katharine Seelye seems to give Senator McCain the edge in the debate this Friday; not only because of his mastery of the subject matter, but also because of what Seelye calls his “track record as a scrappy combatant.” She asserts that McCain is not afraid to take out his opponents and that his strength, connecting with audiences by using “down-to-earth language,” is Obama’s weakness. Aside from praising McCain however, Seelye also enumerates McCain’s weaknesses such as “looking wooden” and his practice of evading the questions when they are outside of his comfort zone. Seelye concludes the article with comments from David Birdsell, a political communications expert from Baruch College, who refers to Senator McCain as “irascible” and “stoked by personal animosity.” According to Birdsell, it will be a challenge for McCain to keep that in check on Friday as he debates Senator Obama who is 25 years his junior and is someone McCain believes “has not paid his dues.”

So it is obvious the media has a strong hand in informing the public what to look for in debates and what to expect from each of the two candidates. Aside from the media however, the campaigns themselves attempt to control the expectations people have about the upcoming debates. This tactic is surprising and surprisingly effective. In an article in the “Boston Globe” this week entitled “On debate night, who’ll be master of low expectations?” Peter Canellos states that, “From now until Friday, campaign aides will be working overtime to persuade everyone what bad debaters their bosses really are.” He states in the article that presidential debates are won because of two things, “gaffes and expectations,” and campaigns have become masterful at controlling the expectations side of things.

Campaigns often control expectations by praising the opposition “so as to set an impossibly high bar,” according to Canellos. In this way, the public cannot help but be disappointed when a candidate does not perform as well as the hype prophesied he would. For this particular debate, John McCain has been continually praising Senator Obama’s rhetorical skill, stating, among other things that, “ Obama was able to, I think, with his eloquence inspire a great number of Americans. So these are going to be tough debates.” (see full article here) And these words of praise are coming from both sides of the party divide, as Obama’s campaign insists McCain has the upper hand, having “been immersed in the issues for more than two decades in the senate.” With this tactic the candidates lower their own expectations by raising those of their opponent, done in the hope that the other person will not be able to measure up to the praise and therefore, lose points with the media and the viewing public.

Tomorrow will be the first official presidential debate of the season and the first time since the nominating conventions that the candidates will be locked in, essentially, hand-to-hand combat. For weeks now the media and the campaigns have been attempting to create expectations that will, in some part, help us define who wins the debate tomorrow night. After all, in the end, it is the media who will determine the victor in tomorrow night’s contest.

How does race affect the election?

2008-09-24T20:50:00.000-07:00

After Lenny McCallister, leader of the hip-hop young republicans, quoted Dr. Martin Luther King in an interview with CNN, “may we not live in a nation that judges a person by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character,” I realized that McAllister was correct when he was implying that race should not be a factor in a voter’s decision on November 4th. Sadly though, Americans as a whole suggest otherwise.

McCallister is a young, black Republican who leads an organization called “hip hop young republicans,” whom I met during the Republican National Convention. McCallister opened my eyes and allowed me to see past the stereotype that I had once created in my mind, “blacks vote democrat,” and ensured that I had a more educated view on the hip hop republican movement. He stated that there exist a difference between a black republican and a hip hop republican, “Hip-Hop Republicans grew up with the influence of hip-hop culture, and while black Republican is a label based solely on race, ‘Hip Hop Republican’ speaks to the existence of a group that has transcended race in many ways.” (See this website).

While McAllister’s passion to separate race from political party’s may be enough to inspire hope for the young voters of the future, I fear that his movement has not yet become influential enough to affect the issue of race in the upcoming presidential election. Whether it is blacks voting for Obama because he is black, or whites not voting for Obama because he is black, this election reminds us that race is still very much an issue.

With a black man strongly contending for president, it is hard, even for a “black republican” to vote for the republican candidate. On one side, there is not only the typical view that blacks will vote democrat, but also the view that all blacks will vote for Obama. Since 1964, the tendency for blacks to cast ballots in favor of the Democratic Party has become increasingly common; and with Barack Obama as a candidate in the 2008 presidential election, a larger number of African Americans will cast their vote for the democratic ticket than ever before. Great presidents such as FDR, Truman, and Kennedy are all Democratic presidents who are known for building a strong relationship between the blacks and the Democratic Party. Since these presidents, with the exception of the 1972, 1984, and the 1992 presidential elections, blacks have continued to give a minimum of 80% of their votes to the Democratic Candidate (See this website). With a voting history like this, is it any surprise to see that black voter turnout reached a high in the 2008 primaries with a candidate who is not only a democrat, but a black democrat? If nothing else, the democratic primary between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama proved race is still a factor when it comes to politics. Obama’s overwhelming support from the black vote in the primaries not only proved that Clinton did not receive the same support from this group as her husband did, but it showed how much influence a black candidate can have over the same group of voters. It makes me wonder whether Bill Clinton would have received as much support from the black community if Senator Obama was his opposition (See this website).

In an article in Essence Magazine, a number of Black Republicans spoke about the struggle of overcoming their internal desire to cast their vote for Obama simply because of his race, "As a Black man, it weighs heavily on me," says New Yorker Wendall Niles, of Obama's candidacy. "Politics is a part of my life, but being Black is my life." While Niles is trying to fight his urge of voting for Obama simply because of his Black identity, other Black Republicans such as Peter W.D. Bramble, Ph.D., prove the power that Obama has over Black voters is unbeatable. Even with his strong support of the Republican Ideologies, and his strong disgust with the thought of programs such as universal healthcare, Bramble says "I'm a Republican. I'm not changing my registration or my beliefs," he says. "But I'm voting for Obama. If a Black man becomes president of the United States of America, then Black people will stop singing, 'We shall overcome some day.' Symbolically, his victory would show them that they have overcome." (See this website).

No matter what the reason, Senator Obama has inspired Black voters from across the nation to cast their vote for the democratic ticket in the upcoming election.
While blacks voting for Obama simply because he is black may be one side of the race issue, there is a whole other side that may affect the presidential race just as much. While new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 85% of Likely voters say they are ‘willing’ to vote for a African American Candidate, this poll does not take into account the white voters who say they are ‘willing,’ but who are not actually ‘ready’ (See this website).
The hardest thing for pollster’s to poll for is racial attitudes and how it affects their behaviors, because while most people say that they are willing to vote for a black candidate in order to ensure to themselves and others that they are not racist by any means, their voting behavior may not correlate with what they say. According to an AP-Yahoo News poll, designed in partnership with Stanford University, without racial prejudices, Senator Barack Obama would receive about 6 percentage points more support. “The results suggest that 40 percent of white Americans hold at least a partly negative view toward blacks, including more than a third of white Democrats and independents. A small percentage of voters -- 2.5 percent of those surveyed -- said they may turn away from Obama because of his race” (See this website). Again, it is the same story as the black vote as it is for the white vote. Many whites will say that they are willing to vote for a black candidate, but will their actions speak louder than their words, or will they drown in a fear that is hidden deep within them?

Currently Obama is leading McCain by 89% to 5% among African American Voters (11% of likely voters), while McCain is leading Obama 52% to 42% among white voters (78% of likely voters) (See this website). With a record number of African American Delegate at the 2004 Republican National Convention, one would think that the republicans were doing a good job at galvanizing black support. The 2008 Republican National Convention proved otherwise with the lowest black representation in 40 year. The 36 African-American delegates in 2008 represented only 1.5 percent of the party’s total delegate count, that’s a 78.4 percent decline from 2004, when 164 black delegates participated at the Republican Convention. This is shocking, but what is more shocking is that nearly 25 percent of delegates attending the Democratic Party’s 2008 convention were African American. If the numbers at the convention are any proof of what is to come, the democratic nominee will sweep the African American vote without a problem (See this website).

But how will this affect the election? "The stakes are extremely high. In 2004, African Americans made up approximately 11 percent of the vote nationwide. If the percentage of African-Americans was a mere two-and-a-half percent higher at 13-and-a-half percent, Democrats would currently be running for reelection in 2008," he said. For example in the state of Ohio in 2004, Democrats lost by 2% or 100,000 votes. There were 270,000 unregistered African-Americans. So the African-American vote can absolutely make a difference in this election." (See this website). These are the exact kind of statistics Obama is hoping to change, and the kind of statistics that his campaign believes will help push him ahead of John McCain. With greater African American support, and a steady support from white democrats, Obama has the chance to win states that democrats have come close to in the past two elections, especially swing states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Florida. With the efforts of 3,000 volunteers helping young voters and black voters register, Obama also hopes to regain control of southern states with large black populations (See this website). With an increase of black voters, some statistics suggest that Obama can win states which have in the past, been won by Republican candidates. But, is this to much to ask of the citizens of America? Is Obama depending to much on his “get out the vote tactic” and not enough on winning the votes of people who are surely going to be at the polls on November 4th?

In the end I believe that race will indeed affect the election, because I believe that it already has. Never before has there been a strong black contester for president, which is why voter interest is sky rocketing. While blacks have proven their loyalty to the democratic ticket in past presidential elections, it has never been enough to strike Republicans as dangerous. While individuals like McCallister fight to find a sense of political independence free from his race, others seem less inclined, atleast in this election.

Debate on Friday's debate

2008-09-24T14:42:00.000-07:00

McCain has proposed that Friday's debate be postponed due to the economic crisis that has taken over Wall Street and Washington in the past few days. The $700 billon proposed package that will be introduced in the Senate has caused McCain to feel as if he should stop his presidential campaigning and return to Washington to perform his duties as a Senator. Obama, as reported in a NY Times article today, wants to keep on the campaign trail and not interfere presidential campaigning with Washington.

It is interesting to see the different perspectives by the candidates on what to do about the debates. In an article on Bloomberg.com they quote Obama saying "It is going to be part of the president's job to deal with more than one thing at once.'' On the other hand, McCain believes that this is a time to put "Country First" and deal with the current economic problems, which mirrors his actions during Hurricane Ike at the Republican National Convention.

Some see McCain using this as a political move to surprise the American public again, just like with his choice of Sarah Palin as his VP nominee. The true intentions of McCain's actions are not clear, but it will be interesting to see how the media and voters react to his proposal to delay the debate. Since this is the first time since Kennedy that a Senator has run for president, there is little precedent on what a Senator should do in a time of crisis.

Democrats need the white vote

2008-09-24T06:41:00.000-07:00

In a report put out this week by the Democratic Leadership Council, the organization reports that Obama is going to have a hard time winning the election with only the African-American and youth vote. The Democratic party has struggled with white voters for years; the party not having won a majority of white voters since 1964.
The report looks at who are the strong supporters of the Democratic party and what section of the swing vote the Democrats need to try to win over. The conclusion the Council reached was that slight gains with working-class whites could prove the most helpful to guarantee a Democratic victory. According to the DLC, these white working-class voters made up 40% of voters in the 2004 election.
The report suggests the necessity of appealing to these working-class whites for Democrats, but also states that it is going to be difficult for Obama to win over this section of the electorate. It will be interesting to see how Obama attempts to make in-roads with working-class whites over the next few weeks.

How connected are the candidates to their ads?

2008-09-23T18:06:00.000-07:00

We all saw the SNL skit of John McCain endorsing outrageous ads without even a second to think about the truth or meaning behind them. The SNL skit and Biden's comments on recent Obama ads have made me realize that the candidates often have little to no say in their ads, and often do not really "approve" the message.

In Biden's interview with Katie Couric he commented that one of the recently released Obama ads attacking McCain was "terrible". If the VP nominees are not behind the message the Presidential candidates are releasing, how united are the campaigns? In the 24 hour news world we live in today, it is of no surprise that the media will blow comments out of proportion made by the opposing side. However, it is interesting that a comment coming directly from the campaign does not have the endorsement of one of the candidates on the ticket.

McCain girl VS Obama girl!

2008-09-23T15:27:00.000-07:00

It's a knock down drag out fight, the first of what may not be the last, for the first time ever we are introduced to McCain's Incredible Hulk Girl!

Let's back up a little to give some context to this issue. During the early phases of Obama's endeavor for the White House, a young risque brunette decided to take up his cause. She danced, she wiggled and writhed for the caucus if just to get the vote out. What started as a response to Hillary's determined effort to stay in the race despite risking party unity, quickly turned into a pop phenomenon. The Obama girl, Amber Lee Ettinger, appeared on MSNBC to discuss, what else, politics. Her stint on Youtube has been generating hits, but the jury is still out as to whether or not that it will generate votes.

Now the antithesis of Obama girl has hit Youtube with McCain's Incredible Hulk Girl. Like Amber Lee, the Alexis Pelekanos is backed by Barely Political who serve up political satire fresh and steaming as a pile of mud that fell off the mudslinging wagon. Alexis is equally daring in her risque outfit and bulging green biceps. The Incredible Hulk girl goes heel to heel with her counterpart Obama girl in a battle to end all battles. The winner is not shown as this is only a preview for the big blockbuster sure to grace our Youtube screens at some point in the never-future.

Is this where sex and politics mix best? Like a martini only this one isn't served dry, it's served green, and brunette. How demeaning is this to the female gender? Is this just another way of saying that women serve limited functions, such as sex symbols?

The answers to these questions lie with you, the voters, whose opinion is important in these matters. Vote for Obama, the flavor of brunette, or pick a hulk for McCain. Or better yet, choose neither and go for Hillary Man. That's right, you heard it, Hillary Man. Every candidate gets a fan!

Palin's Prep

2008-09-23T06:48:00.000-07:00

A McCain campaign fundraising calendar from before his VP selection shows that the VP nominee was scheduled to headline nine fundraisers by now, but Sarah Palin has been at just one. She'll pass on several others scheduled this week in order to travel with McCain and, many speculate, prepare for her debate with Democratic VP nominee Joe Biden. She is visiting with world leaders this week in New York City. On another note, Politico writes that the GOP simply realized her energizing power after the RNC and decided that she needed to be at McCain's side, helping to draw large crowds and excite voters about the ticket rather than shaking hands at small, private fundraisers. Palin is playing an especially unique role for VP nominee. Under usual circumstances she would be out attacking the opponent left and right (no pun intended) and fundraising at every turn. According to the Rasmussen daily tracking poll, both candidates are at 48% support and are seen favorably by 54% of the population. The strategy with Palin will make a substantial difference in the coming weeks, as will her performance in the October 2 VP debate, which will focus on domestic and foreign policy. The mystery is how these two things will combine to push McCain ahead, allow Obama to gain, or keep the race in a dead heat.

Over 20,000 at Obama rally in Charlotte today

2008-09-21T12:03:00.000-07:00

Sen. Obama visits Charlotte today speaking about the Wall Street crisis and the economy. According to the Charlotte Observer, the police department estimated 20,000 people inside the gates and another 5,000-10,000 outside.

Obama criticized McCain over his economic philosophy saying, "...I do fault the economic policy he's followed during his 26 years in Washington. It's a philosophy that says it's ok to turn a blind eye to practices that reward financial manipulation..."

As the economic crisis deepens, both candidates have to stick to a very specific plan. The most promising plan will definitely turn out more voters.

According to a fox news online survey, 64 % responded John McCain has offered the strongest economic plan.

Are the polls hiding the reality?

2008-09-18T07:33:00.001-07:00

This morning Fox News ran a story about the importance of race in this election. They discussed how many people believe that in the end, not as many voters will actually vote for a black man as they say they will. This was talked about after the primary election with the exit poll results, however, there has not been as much talk recently about whether America is actually ready for a Barack Obama to be president.

The idea that there will be a discrepancy between the opinion polls and what voters actually mark on their ballots Election Day stems from the 1982 California governor's race of a white man versus an African-American, Tom Bradley. Bradley was up in the polls and seemed to be the winner throughout the campaign, however, on Election Day he did not win. This "Bradley effect" is something that the Obama campaign is surely fearful of.

I believe that this "Bradley effect" will have an impact on many voters, and it will be interesting to see what those collecting exit poll results will come to find of white voters that were "leaning Obama" or undecided. As we have often learned, people tend to do what is comfortable and do not often venture into the unknown. While race has nothing to do with Obama's policies or his ability to lead our country, the reality is race will be a factor in voters decisions.

Class calls Obama the winner at 50 day mark

2008-09-16T07:44:00.000-07:00

What we sometimes forget when looking at the "horse race" of an election and constantly checking daily poll updates is the importance of the electoral vote. Getting to the golden number of 270 is what all candidates are focused on, and that is why we see time and time again the candidates spending more time and money on the swing or battleground states.

Yesterday our class, as "experts" on each state, called the election for either Senator McCain or Senator Obama. We had 8 states that students believed to be too close to call, but they ultimately had to call the election for either candidate. By presenting the number of electoral votes we had when students were forced to call those "Too close to call" states and then contrasting those numbers with if those states went the other way, we can see that this election is going to be interesting to watch up until November 4th.

McCain (with gaining 2 too close to call states) received 259 electoral votes. Obama (with 5 too close to call states) received 279 electoral votes, making him the winner of our class' 50 day prediction. However, it is interesting to look at what the numbers would be without those too close to call votes. McCain would have 237 electoral votes, Obama would have 217, and there are 84 electoral votes that are too close to call.

The states our class flagged as too close to call 50 days out are Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. When forced to choose, Obama was called the winner in Colorado, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. McCain took only Minnesota and Missouri.

"I'm Bai'lin on Palin!"

2008-09-14T20:18:00.000-07:00

After Palin's address at the new convention center, hundreds gathered in Anchorage, Alaska on Saturday for an anti-Palin rally.

Most of the supporters were protesting her pro-life stance.

One woman wore a clothes hanger on her saying "This is not a surgical instrument, keep abortions safe and legal."

Others spoke out about her lying about earmarking and her bridge to nowhere. One woman said "I don't vote for liars."

Although a smaller group of Palin supporters joined on the other side of the street shouting "Sarah, Sarah," its not looking too good from her home state.

Where are the issues? Even Rove wants to know.

2008-09-14T20:00:00.000-07:00

In an interesting turn of events, Karl Rove speaks some honest truth and criticizes both presidential candidates' campaigning methods, as reported by Politico. He says of McCain and Obama, "They don't need to attack each other in this way. They have legitimate points to make about each other." Rove is referring to the ads both candidates have released focusing on varying degrees of sexism on the part of the other, character traits, and so on. Naturally, the Obama campaign is taking Rove's words and using them to their advantage... But the lack of issue content in the most recent string of ads is disconcerting. It seems like an endless cycle where each candidate must have the last word, but there are strikingly few words about healthcare, the environment, or the war in Iraq. There is hopefully plenty of issue content in the speeches being given right and left in battleground states, but there are several voters who don't get the privilege of all that attention. There are also several voters who don't turn out to political speeches and only see the ads circulating on TV. More and more talking heads are declaring this race one of personality and character. It is reminiscent of the race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, who had relatively similar issue platforms. The hype over Obama as the first black presidential nominee has subsided considerably, largely because of the hype surrounding Palin's nomination. Hopefully in the next fifty days her hype will subside, too and we can return to the issues. This is not to blame Palin for the diluted political content, her injection into the race has simply highlighted both sides' eagerness to engage in a public name-game rather than a political debate.

The Countdowns

2008-09-11T20:03:00.000-07:00

MSNBC's "First Read" does a countdown of the upcoming election events.

First presidential debate: 15 days 
Vice presidential debate: 21 days 
Second presidential debate 26 days 
Third presidential debate: 34 days 
Election Day 2008: 54 days 
Inauguration Day 2009: 131 days

The media or the campaigns?

2008-09-11T19:32:00.000-07:00

Trying to find the latest on the presidential election has been lacking substance over the past few days. Website after website, news station after news station, has constantly been focused on the non-substantive aspects of the campaigns. As I have been reading and watching, I constantly wonder, "What about the issues?".

The real question here, however, is who is responsible for this type of focus in a presidential campaign? Is it the media or the campaigns themselves? NBC's coverage of Obama's use of the expression "lipstick on a pig" is a perfect example of what this presidential election has come to be about.

It will be interesting to see how many more of claims of sexism McCain's camp will try to attack Obama with. Throwing a woman into this already heated election will make the coverage and attacks much different than we have seen in previous elections.

Swing Voters Holding All the Power?

2008-09-10T14:18:00.000-07:00

The country's hyperpartisanship is turning off Independents, and it looks as if the swing voters are going to decide this election. McCain and Obama are both talking about change to try and sway undecided voters their way. Who the nation is going to believe can actually bring about that change is still up in the air as the polls even out. For more information on this topic read CNN's article on swing voters.