I found this post online. Toby Harnden has published what he believes to be the top ten events Americans should be looking out for tomorrow if they want a good idea about who will win. It is exciting to see Pennsylvania as such an important factor in this year's election. I will be voting tomorrow and as a first time voter, I am hoping to gain a sense of patriotism and pride that I am playing a part of such an important time in American history. Interestingly, Harnden also includes a note about the media. If, during the exit polls we see biographical videos on Obama and discussion of landslides, then we can expect McCain to be defeated. This seems strange, considering what happened in the 2000 Election. I wonder how much predictive power this actually has.
Furthermore, by looking over this synopsis it seems that it will take a miracle for McCain to pull this off. Young voters also were placed as number ten. Today I watched MTV and found it interesting that the McCain campaign had "respectfully declined" the opportunity to answer young voters' questions. In a way I can understand how one may feel snubbed, but I think they reasoned it more crucial to dedicate these last precious hours elsewhere (as most young voters will be voting for Obama or atleast are expected to).
Overall, I felt this to be an extremely helpful site in helping to narrow down what is of importance and what is merely fluff in tomorrow's festivities. I cannot believe Election Day is finally here. It will be an exciting day and I am eager to see the results as well as the American people's responses.
Today, I read an article that discussed Sarah Palin's popularity. As the author shows, it seems to be that women either love her or hate her. I found this to be interesting considering I have my reservations about her as well. Women who love Palin appear to adore the characteristics that I seem to can't stand (such as her excessive winking and sarcasm). Sure it is great that she is a fresh face to politics, but what does her appearance as "just your average hockey mom" implicate for the election?
According to this author, Palin's nomination as VP has actually hurt McCain's popularity. This was very surprising to me considering his choice seemed so blatantly obvious to be a political maneuver. Barack Obama has a 17 point lead among women. Furthermore, women who support Palin seem to be more persuaded by her conservative views (pro-life, stance on stemcell research) than the fact that she is a woman. I find this hard to believe, considering the case of Hillary Clinton supporters who have now switched boats (see previous blogpost).
It is great for women to have someone they feel can relate to. Some women even characterize her nomination as "brilliant." However, perhaps gender is not as pervasive of an issue as I have originally thought in the birth of the campaign season and will not play as important of a deciding factor in this election.
This in an article in Time that I found to be particularly interesting. Not only does it affirm Obama's lead in certain states that President Bush had carried previously, but also concludes that McCain's negative attacks have failed in persuading the American public that he is the superior candidate.
McCain's campaign has recently focused on linking Obama to former domestic terrorist William Ayers and the liberal organizing group ACORN. However, the voters are not buying it. The article contributes Obama's lead to the ineffectiveness of McCain ads.
But because the polls were conducted via phone, I have to wonder how much of an accurate reflection they are of reality. People who are especially passionate about the election this year and who firmly believe in a candidate are much more likely to respond. I doubt many polls that are conducted for this reason.
Overall this article shows us that negativity may not necessarily be the most optimal route to take in campaigning. It is interesting that Obama's negative ads were successful in persuading many that McCain is incapable of effectively dealing with the economic issues. Perhaps McCain's ads seem more baseless to voters, as opposed to the link Obama has created between McCain and President Bush.
I felt this article necessary to discuss given the previous post about negative campaign ads. I am curious to see how all of this 'mudslinging' will play out. Perhaps future campaigns will learn from this presidential election in terms of what is successful and what is not in persuading the electorate.
What I found to be particularly interesting during the third and final debate, was the emphasis on making unfair comments and accusations. In particular, John McCain made a special effort to claim how inaccurate, unfair and morally wrong the Obama campaign's allegations have been. Americans are all aware that this has been both a heated and incredibly lengthy race to the polls. Nevertheless, it was an extremely beneficial opportunity for both candidates to explain why and how they differ. We have learned of the impressive power of the media. And through direct explanation, the candidates were able to communicate their positions to the Americans.
I have heard through the media that the negative feelings towards the McCain-Palin ticket is largely accredited to their own decisions to attack Obama's character. This morning, Colin Powell announced his endorsement of Obama. In a press interview, he explained that he believed McCain's allegations (i.e. Obama is a terrorist) were outrageous and unfair. This is a striking contrast when compared to the image of innocence and helplesness McCain tried to create during the debate. Furthermore, the McCain campaign has proclaimed that Obama's economic and tax policies are socialist. Most Americans do not have an accurate understanding of socialist policies and link the ideology to Communism. I believe this an effective campaign strategy as the Red-Scare is still looming large over society.
I do not know about anyone else, but I am greatly looking forward to November 4th. I am flat out getting tired of all the harping and these low-blows.
"Do you support Obama because he's pro life or because he wants to keep our troops in Iraq?"
As students of Political Science, all of us are aware of the fundamental differences between Republicans and Democrats generally speaking. We can see how the question above seems contradictory.
But when the Howard Stern Show hit the streets and questioned voters why they supported Obama, most voters did not see a problem. In fact, they missed basic facts about the election. The interviewees even believed that Sarah Palin was a "great pick" for Obama's running mate. For me, this was a huge eye opener. It is crazy to believe that so many individuals are not informed of what we consider to be common knowledge. It is upsetting that the masses are so impressionable. It is suggested by Howard Stern that these men and women are voting solely because of race. Perhaps this does demonstrate how important the race card is in this year's election. I, along with most, feel that race, gender, etc should be irrelevant. Unfortunately, this is a naive expectation and undoubtedly idealistic.
The most important message of this post is that we as society should be educating voters or else we are more susceptible to the deceit and tricks of "dirty politics." It is the shame that the issues are not of utmost importance when it comes down to the election. I am positive the same is true of McCain supporters. Perhaps this is something we can strive for.
On October 9th, Obama called out Senator McCain for his "uncertain" and "erratic behavior." Here, again, we see the importance of leadership in the campaign. It is imperative for any successful candidate to establish himself as someone who is both trustworthy and credible. In this short 1 minute clip, we see a variety of tactics used.
In describing how McCain's stance has fluctuated, Obama is demonstrating his opponent's uncertainty and lack of care. According to Obama, even with his new plan, he is punishing taxpayers and failing to solve our housing crisis. Furthermore, he is hinting that McCain is inept and fails to understand the true ramifications of the problem. He concludes by stating that McCain's "erratic and uncertain leadership in these uncertain times" is unfitting. We need someone whom is both steady and trustworthy.
I could not help but wonder if Obama was indirectly hinting at McCain's age for his "erratic" behavior. It is something interesting to think about. Perhaps he is playing off his opponent's "disadvantage" by claiming he is unfit to lead our nation under these conditions. Any thoughts?
This is an interesting article in The New York Observer. The McCain campaign is now focusing on Obama's "touchiness" every time he is questioned about his record. On October 6th, he asked a crowd in Albuquerque, "Who is the real Senator Obama?" He claimed that Obama thinks "somehow the usual rules don't apply" and fails to supply an open book about his political record. McCain asserted that whatever the question or issue may be, Obama provides a "back story."
"In short: Who is the real Barack Obama? But ask such questions and all you get in response is another barrage of angry insults."
Political ideology aside, McCain is trying to show that Obama is not a desirable leader because he is not giving us the truth up front. Whether or not you agree, here is an example of what we have discussed in class. This assertion by McCain focuses on the personality of Obama or "what is going on underneath the surface" rather than his behaviors or style. McCain is hoping to convince voters that there is somehow something deceptive or misleading about his opponent. This is an especially undesirable quality of a president today. Our concept of leadership, entails translucence and clarity. Especially because of the economic crisis, I feel that Americans want the truth up front and are tired of the corruption and deceit that have pervaded the issues for so long. I am not sure how successful this attempt will be however. I feel that it may be viewed as an uncalled for and inappropriate comment.
It is absolutely imperative that a presidential candidate portray an image that is favorable to the public's perception of "who a leader is." As leadership is situational, people's ideas of presidential leadership is somewhat different than an individual who holds another position. Here, in this campaign ad for the primaries, Barack Obama is specifically trying to show why/how he would make a good leader.
He begins by promising he will be a straightforward, genuine and bipartisan leader. He then describes his compassion. He provides a brief but rich history which shows how he fought for civil rights and the misfortunes of citizens. He also conveys himself as someone who is ethical by explaining how he fought for more stringent ethical standards. I thought it was especially interesting how he admitted he is neither a "perfect man" nor will be a "perfect president." While it seems foolish to do this, I think it is important for him to establish that he is relatable and will listen to the demands of the American public (which he later went on to discuss). Obama is heavily scrutinized for being an advocate of the middle class with such a privileged upbringing and perhaps he was intending to alleviate these concerns.
After discussing leadership in class on Thursday, I began to wonder how the American public may be assessing the presidential candidates. Specifically, what are the traits of Obama and McCain that may translate into positive feelings that one or the other would make a "better" leader?
On one hand, Senator Barack Obama has many appealing traits that may indicate his leadership abilities. For example, he is extremely well spoken. As opposed to President McCain, in my opinion, he is much more fluid and projects his ideas in a much more straightforward manner. To some voters, good communication that entails ones intellect and genuine character may be persuasive at the polls. Furthermore, Senator Joe Biden is well-averse and experienced on the level of national politics. Some may envision the president and vice president of the US as a knowledgeable individuals who understand the processes of government. Should this be the case, then Biden is a good fit for this mold of a good leader.
Nevertheless, Senator John McCain can also fit this mold. Furthermore, he conveys the image of a "Maverick" (as Sarah Palin consistently reminded us last night at the VP debates!). According to this analogy, he is someone who defies party lines and works on behalf of the nation as a whole, setting aside bipartisanship. To some, this may be an important trait of a leader. They may want someone who will not work for certain interests but makes unbiased and sincere decisions. Others may envision a leader as someone who is relatable. In this case, Sarah Palin may be very influential. She projects an image of "just your average hockey mom." Individuals for the most part do not want a leader who acts 'untouchable' and above the rest of society.
There are other important characteristics/traits of a leader that are desirable. However, I believe all four of these are crucial for a successful leader to encompass. By being a well-communicative, experienced, relatable "Maverick" one would surely find success! Perhaps because there are so many positive qualities dispersed across both tickets, I am so indecisive.
Note: This will be a very brief post, since the image is rather self-explanatory.
This chart has many connotations. For example, "New Age" makes us feel hopeful and correlates to an extent with Obama's campaign on change. "Cold War," on the other hand is reminiscent of danger and undoubtedly has a negative insinuation. Similarly, throughout the rest of the chart we can see how the media has framed the candidates in certain ways that serve a greater political agenda; to make Obama more appealing to the undecided voter.
The MSNBC Coverage appears to be skeptical of McCain's decision to suspend his campaign. Tom Brokaw, as a guest to offer commentary attributes this as part of the madness of the election process thus far. At 1:25 especially, Brokaw shifts uneasily in his seat and raises his eyebrows. These actions seem to hint at his uneasiness with McCain's decision and seems to assert that he believes the decision was a political maneuver. It is interesting how they doubt the sincerity of McCain by discussing how he will be handsomely rewarding should he partake in a Republican solution to the economic disaster the US is currently facing. Brokaw seems to be criticizing McCain in stating that the shape of the economy is so much more than a domestic issue. This is immediately after he states that Obama wants to speak to "millions of people" directly about the issue in the debate scheduled for Friday.
More important, Brokaw criticizes McCain's campaign decisions thus far. He refers to it as an "ambush" and example of "guerilla warfare," both which have negative connotations. Brokaw draws light to the unpredictability of his behavior. He perks up his head and blinks slowly, which adds a mocking-dimension to his commentary. When discussing the debates at Ole Miss, he also adds a modifier into describing the Republican Convention as "long," while referring to the Democratic National Convention, simply as is. When he discusses leadership, photos of Obama addressing the press as opposed to when the Republican ticket is shown, Brokaw discusses more substance (previous debate).
Note: Initially I had wanted to find a good "Conservative" twist on the story in order to compare/contrast the two coverages, but could not locate a good story to demonstrate this. If I find one, I will add it.
The above is a video from Pastor James David Manning. He bashes the media for "running with" the story of Bristol Palin's pregnancy. His argument, as we've discussed in class has its merits. However, in my opinion, he takes this too far (I feel safe to say most would agree). I understand his message but by calling Barack Obama's "mama" a piece of trash, and his father, a "pathetic loser" who knocked up women all over Kenya is just absurd. His overall intent of this rant is valuable, by showing Obama and the democratic should not be trying to run a campaign based morality, family values, etc. But in my opinion, he would have been much more successful in toning down his argument. And rather than referring to Obama's mother as a "low-life sleezy, snail-eating white woman,"raise questions about just how "ethical" his background is and perhaps mention a fact or two, (which his speech is lacking in). Should he have chosen to do this, I believe his argument would have received more POSITIVE attention and ultimately, been more persuasive.
Brief Summary: Lynn Forester de Rothschild has thrown her support behind Republican John McCain, accusing the Democratic ticket of extremism and elitism. Her logic was that the McCain-Palin government "will be a centrist government. It's not going to be an ideological government."
I found this article to be pertinent to our class discussion today. Although this is "interesting" news in my mind... could it also be serving to persuade Clinton supporters that McCain is more desirable and suitable to be president? It may be far-fetched but this is something that I would have never thought about or considered prior to this course. The source or writer could be a Republican or McCain supporter who wishes to appeal greater to the Clinton fanbase. I am not sure how/if Yahoo is politically alligned but I am uncertain as to the real motivation behind this fact being deemed as newsworthy. I am interested to see if more left-leaning media sources such as CNN cover this story (by justification, minimization, etc).
[Rant] I am so surprised to have searched around YouTube and found this ad. Republican ads like this, appear to be popular in the South. I found many similar to this one by simply clicking around. Republicans are attempting to establish a link from Obama's pastor's "unpatriotic" comments to Obama and then to Democratic candidates. They are trying to frame their opponents as unpatriotic and radical who are unreligious and hate guns. To me, advertisements such as this have no validity and persuasive effect whatsoever and are merely playing off a stereotype of southerners. I think they are ridiculous and baseless.
This is something I found particularly interesting because I was wondering how Sarah Palin's daugther's pregnancy would affect voting patterns. Obviously, the main question is how evangelical's support would change. As this article shows, however, evangelicals claim to be supportive of the decision and they will not be derailed from the Republican ticket. It appears that these men and women are altering their opinions to justify this in their minds. In a religion that promotes sexual intercourse as restricted for procreation purposes for the married couple (I took a class on abortion last summer), this seems hypocritical. They are simply justifying this case in their minds, and altering past beliefs to conform to the present situation. Nobody said that Palin's daughter and the father of the baby are having plans to be married. And it is pretty obvious that they did not intend to have a baby at such young ages (so it was pleasure, not procreation).
In this case, the story/narrative they are telling are of a young couple, who happily decided to keep the baby in an unselfish manner. This is ignorant considering they are not addressing the emotional feelings and turmoil the teenagers are most likely experiencing at the moment. Secondly, they are framing it in a way that ignores the reality of premarital sex and justifies the situation by emphasizing the positive (i.e. "Thank God they decided to keep the baby").
Note: I can honestly state that these feelings are coming from the class I took this summer.
After seeing this commercial on TV this morning, I felt compelled to include it on this blog and offer some comments. Props should be given to the Barack Obama Campaign for utilizing such a popular and catchy song to their benefit. It is distinct in this regard, compared to the rest of the arguably dull and monotonous other campaign ads.
This advertisement is directly aimed at the “typical American” who is feeling the brunt of the weakening economy. The Obama camaign has capitalized on a quote by John McCain and sends an overall message that HE “don’t know much.” This phrase implies John McCain is unintelligent in two respects; (1) through the simple and screamingly obvious grammatical error and (2) that he is not knowledgeable in the workings of the economy. As discussed in class, politicians take one misspoken statement and simply run with it, prying as much influence on the voting population as possible (just as the Republicans have done with Obama’s statements in San Francisco about Pennsylvanians). And this ad is no exception.
Visually, the pictures will certainly resonate with Americans. By showing signs of gas pumps and foreclosure signs, the campaigners are trying to identify with middle-class America, and nowadays, who isn’t concerned with making payments? Furthermore, by adding lyrics about McCain’s poor understanding of middle class hardships, he is building off his previous bashes against McCain (which is demonstrated in previous commercials) that he can’t even recall how many houses he has.
[[ Sidenote: I actually can remember how many… John McCain has seven homes. So I guess his previous efforts had worked!]]
More importantly, this commercial sends another message; that John McCain and George Bush are the same. By showing the two men looking happy together and even embracing one another, viewers may question if these next four years will be any different if McCain is elected. If I were campaigning for Obama, I would take this even one step further or perhaps create another television advertisement that used Bill Clinton. People tend to associate President Clinton with a strong, prosperous economy. Whether you love him or you hate him, he is connected (economically speaking) to a time of growth and opulence. And by creating a link between the democrats and wealth, Americans will recall the 1990’s and contrast it with the economic hardships today. This, in my opinion, would make this ad even more successful in its persuasion.
Once John McCain announced Sarah Palin as his running mate on Friday, August 29, 2008, America responded with a giant "WHO???" In order to address this big question and create a name for herself in Washington and American politics, Palin made a conscious effort to focus on her personal life at the Republican National Convention. While some condemn her for doing so, (i.e. "What does a stable family life and lots of children have to do with her ability to be Vice President?") I found it to be necessary. Other than hearing through the media that she is young, attractive and Governor of Alaska, I was undoubtedly clueless and eager to know what this woman is all about.
Through her speech, I learned of her intense character and personal background. I now have a greater sense of an appropriate answer to the question of WHO? and in all practicality, will gain even more insight as November 2nd approaches. Cleverly, Palin "killed two birds with one stone" or had a dual purpose to her life discussion. She used her personal background as a political tool to both bash the Obama/Biden ticket and appeal to more voters.
For example, Palin repeatedly reminded America throughout her speech that she is “small-town” and proud of it. She attempted to distinguish herself from her opponents by mentioning Obama’s comments about the residents of Scranton, PA who “bitterly” cling to their guns and religion. She promised to ensure their (small-towners) proper representation in Washington and hinted at her “down to earthness” and genuine nature. She presented herself as a typical mom (e.g. signing up for the PTA) with poise and intellect. In my opinion, she did play the sympathy card in choosing to discuss mentally disabled children. However, this should not be scorned upon. Her ability to care for this child is remarkable and undoubtedly difficult, and who can rightly take away her personal motive to make this a more prominent issue in America?
Finally, while listening to Sarah Palin speak, I was curious as to how or even if she would address women voters. With the defeat of Hillary Clinton, many were and still are for that matter, worried that feminist-minded Americans would simply not go to the polls to vote for Barack Obama. In her speech, Sarah Palin seemed to hint at this (at about 1m50s in the YouTube Clip) by saying “every woman” has an “opportunity” in America. Perhaps this subtlety is enough for Hillary supporters… we will see.
Read more thoughts about the issue of Hillary supporters voting for Obama on another blog here.
.jpg)
