Obama "cottled" while Hillary "throttled"

The hilarious SNL post we saw in class last Tuesday brought to light a key point in the Deomcratic presidential primary: the media's relationship with the candidates. It seems as if now more than ever, the media has taken a side in this close race. While Obama is, in the words of a NY Times article, arguably "cottled" by the media, Clinton is "throttled." I find this extemely ironic considering the relationships that they have established thus far. Obama has a very detached relationship with reporters, holding few press conferences and paying little attention to media, while Clinton tries to get on their best side (I still can't believe she -herself- served them peach cobbler on one airplane trip), holding frequent press conferences and interviews.

Even in the recent debate, the moderators put the heat on Clinton, asking her to name and pronounce President Vladimir Putin's successor in Russia, Dmitri A. Medvedev. I can barely pronounce that when its right in my face, let alone hit it off guard in a debate! Now obviously, I am not as knowledgeable in these matters as she is - but my point is that they are playing hardball with her and T-ball with Obama, who slid by mispronouncing Massachusetts (“Massatoosetts”) twice. Could he have answered that same question? (We'll never know...)

"Mrs. Clinton was under attack, but the toughest blows came not from Mr. Obama but from Mr. Russert [the moderator]." It's hard enough to challenge the force that is OBAMA - imagine trying to do it while handling the media as well. The article details some other biases that were present in the debate...She was cut off to go to commercial breaks, unflattering clips of her were "accidentally" shown much more than those of Obama (for which they "apologized"), the list goes on...

"Because Mr. Obama now appears to have overtaken Mrs. Clinton in the polls, the clips on news shows match, all too literally, that narrative: reports show his huge rock concertlike rallies, not his more wilted moments after a debate or in between speeches, when the camera has caught him looking drained and speaking haltingly. And clips of Mrs. Clinton increasingly illustrate the tale of a campaign derailed. "

It is obvious that the media want to tell a story here, and they are continually shaping the candidates so that they fit into neat, predictable characters. I know it is much more complex than that, and Americans deserve to get a better scope of what is really going on. I disagree with a lot of things that the Clinton campaign has done in this race, but I cannot help but be sympathetic towards her. Maybe because I feel that Obama is glorified - a right place at the right time kinda deal. I guess this is just a part of politics and Clinton got the short end of the stick.

Are the media reporting what is happening like they are supposed to or are they choosing sides?

Obama's response to Hillary's ad

Democrat Barack Obama said today that rival Hillary Clinton is trying to scare voters with a new television ad that raises the prospect of a foreign crisis over images of children asleep in their beds. He said, "We've seen these ads before, they're the kind that play on people's fears to scare up votes. Well, it won't work this time, because the question is not about picking up the phone. The question is: What kind of judgment will you make when you answer?"

So now the question is, is Hillary deliberately trying to use scare tactics? Or, is she simply trying to express that she is the most capable candidate to handle emergency situations? Was it wise for her to use this approach? I personally don’t think so, because channeling fear is not an effective way to increase likeability and trust. Obama’s response to this ad is very insightful. He is again using his “I opposed the war from the start” claim, but this time, in response to this ad, it is very effective. The point of Hillary’s ad is to show that she can be trusted to make a crucial and quick decision. However, Obama points out that this isn’t so, because her history has proven this not to be true. Obama emphasizes his decision was indeed the wisest, and he is proving that he is very quick to make a smart and effective judgment call, and he doesn’t have to use “scare tactics” to prove this. I personally think that this response to Hillary’s ad was fantastic. Do you agree or disagree? 

New Ads

With the big primaries coming up on Tuesday, both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama have launched new ads. We will discuss these on Tuesday. Enjoy!

Bloomberg Not Running

Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced in a New York Times Op-Ed that he will not be running for President. Being from New York City I have come to know Mayor Bloomberg's politics and have appreciated what he has done for the city and the nation in the past 7 years. He has proven that it is possible to get beyond partisanship and succeed in the political world. One of the first things he did upon getting to office was ban smoking in bars and restaurants, a trend that he started and has gorwn to cities across America and Europe. He leads the way on issues such as the environment by converting all taxis to hybrids by 2012. Bloomberg has traveled around the country discussing gun control and campaigning for stricter legislation. He and Gov. Schwarzenegger were here at Annenberg in the last year to discuss post-partisan politics in America. I could keep going but the fact is he has been ahead of the curve and this decision is no different.
Mayor Bloomberg has realized that he can do more for the country by not getting in the race directly but by continuing to raise issues that are important to this country in a way that doesn't need spin or contrived arguments but real honest, sorry John McCain, StraightTalk. Ralph Nader should pay attention. Below are some highlights from Bloomberg's Op-Ed:
"As a businessman, I never believed that either party had all the answers and, as mayor, I have seen just how true that is."

"In New York, working with leaders from both parties and mayors and governors from across the country, we’ve demonstrated that an independent approach really can produce progress on the most critical issues, including the economy, education, the environment, energy, infrastructure and crime."

"I am hopeful that the current campaigns can rise to the challenge by offering truly independent leadership. The most productive role that I can serve is to push them forward, by using the means at my disposal to promote a real and honest debate."

"I will continue to work to steer the national conversation away from partisanship and toward unity; away from ideology and toward common sense; away from sound bites and toward substance."

Crunch time for Clinton

Tonight's Ohio debate offers Hillary Clinton one last opportunity to stem Barack Obama's surge. With the elections in Texas and Ohio just one week away and polls showing movement towards the senator from Illinois, Hillary Clinton must stop Obama now. She has the best chance to win in Ohio, and according to the New York Times, she's planning on throwing the whole "kitchen sink" at him to preserve these chances. We'll see what happens tonight. 

In other significant news, Barack Obama picked up the endorsement of Chris Dodd. As the first of the former democratic presidential candidates to endorse, this is a significant pick up. The momentum seems to be out of the Clinton campaign, but who really knows with this election anyway. Nonetheless, it certainly is crunch time for Hillary Clinton.

And the gloves come off

Everyone has been talking about Hillary vs. Obama. I feel as though we have all been waiting for the niceties to stop and for the candidates to show their true selves. The real test, however, will be tonight when the two Democratic candidates for President have their final debate. After watching the two battle it out for the past few days, I think people are looking forward to this debate more than any of the previous ones. Will Hillary continue with the motherly rebukes and see if she can shame Obama into losing his cool, or will she be able to control her emotions and act like a Presidential candidate. I heard that Hillary was handed the NAFTA fliers just as she walked into that press conference where she said, "Shame on you," but for someone to respond with that kind of anger shows a lack of maturity and a loss of self-control. She has been in politics for decades, and when the going gets tough.. It's starting to look as though the "tough" start to bend under the pressure. Not only does it reflect badly on the Hillary campaign, but it shows that the tone of her message is still undecided. One would think that after running for President for over two years now, Hillary would have every part of her campaign planned down to a 't' but no. Surprises happen. You can't blame someone for not being ready, but you can blame them for handling it without a touch of control and class. Let the games begin!

Democrats Candidate Unknown: Good or Bad?

While Obama seems to be on the path to claiming the Democratic nomination, it is amazing that we are entering March with such a tight race. Although I have not closely observed many elections, this is the first election I can remember where there is not a clear distinction of who will be the Democratic candidate. This issue led to a discussion within my group of friends. Our question to each other is how this will impact the Democrats campaign for presidency. The conclusion of our conversation showed both pros and cons to the current situation.

Pros:

• The Democratic Party can begin exposing weaknesses in John McCain's campaign and policies. The Republican Party still does not know who they need to target.
• The Democratic candidates are getting more exposure.
• The Democratic candidates are gaining valuable debate experience that will help them prepare for debate during the general election.
  

Cons:

• The Democratic Party is losing time to unify itself between the primaries and the election.
• Obama and Clinton are criticizing one another so much that the Republicans do not have to worry about attacking either candidate.
  
• More exposure leads to more chances to make mistakes that can come back and hurt the candidates later on.
  

Do you think that the Democrats close Primary race is harming or helping the party? Why or why not?

Obama bashing chain e-mail

I recently got an e-mail from my very conservative and Catholic uncle that was anti-Obama. The e-mail claimed to be based on fact and lead you to a website called www.snopes.com. When I went to the website to see if it is actually legitimate, it definitely was not considering that its tageline is "Snopes.com, Rumor has it." The e-mail is directed at people who value religion and national pride, condemning Obama for his "strong" affiliation with the Muslim religion. Some quotes from the e-mail include:

" Obama was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta . Wahabism is the RADICAL teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world."

"ALSO, keep in mind that when he was sworn into office he DID NOT use the Holy Bible, but instead the Koran."

"Barack Hussein Obama will NOT recite the Pledge of Allegiance nor will he show any reverence for our flag."

"The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest level - through the President of the United States , one of their own!!!!"

As you can see from a few excerpts from the e-mail, it is completely ludicrous! I am actually slightly emberassed to admit that a family member sent it to me.) This is one of those propoganda tools that will probably have a great impact on uniformed voters because if this is all you know about Obama, you are definitely not going to support him. I mean, who wants a terrorist to run our country?

The Michael Moore Effect

With all of the attention focused on the fierce competition between Hillary and Obama over the democratic nomination, seemingly little attention has been paid to John McCain in recent media cycles. I read, however, an interesting article today that talks about a new documentary being published about the Jack Abramoff scandal, including John McCain’s role in the matter. The film will be done by recent academy award winner Alex Gibney. While it is unclear the level of implication related to McCain, it will be interesting to see if this could play a role in the primary elections. Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 was certainly welcomed by some liberals. That being said, it also quickly raised questions about the journalistic integrity of the documentary and seemed to mobilize and equally strong anti-Michael Moore conservative force (e.x. when he spoke at the USC campus before the 2004 election or the Fahrehhype 9/11 production). It’s probably too early to tell but it’s interesting to see if these sort of media productions could play an important role in the election, and how each side will respond

Can Hilary Come Back?

Hilary needs a miracle at this point to be able to make her competitive for the candidacy for the 2008 presidential election. She is very behind Obama and continues to make cheap decisions hoping to hurt his campaign but is only hurting how she is being perceived;thus losing more support on a daily basis. At this point I even speculate that the Hilary campaign is in debt.

Although many people can and will argue that the way she closed the Texas debate was very strong (which I agree with as well) I believe it just is not enough to guarantee her Texas and Ohio. She constantly seems frustrated and desperate for the votes and its making people question her sincerity.

In another class we played an interesting exercise on how people perceive each candidate, by selecting words that best describe them. One conclusion we came to is that this election does not have one issue tied to any candidate (especially Hilary) but instead their character traits are the important deciding factor for voters in this election. Therefore, it is very difficult for Hilary to shift her campaign so that more people will like her and dislike Obama at the same time. Unless someone has a strategy to accomplish that goal I believe Hilary has lost her battle...

A Tale of Two Hillary Clintons in Two Days

Trying to track Hillary Clinton's current campaign strategy over the past week has been a bit of a challenge, given the range of tactics she used between the debate in Texas Thursday night and the press conference she gave Saturday morning in Cincinnati, Ohio.

In terms of how she performed at the debate, she was, for the most part, considered civil and well-prepared. She listed parts of her impressive career accomplishments and compared them to Barack's relatively light resume. And although she did try to continue the narrative of plagiarism that her campaign had been playing up against Obama during the previous week, this attack fell flat with the audience and showed how careful she was going to have to be if she wanted to balance the positive with occasional attempts to go negative. You could tell she viewed this debate, overall, as a chance to defy expectations of her coming in with mud-slinging desperation and instead take the high road and show her superiority over Obama on the issues themselves. During a brief moment in which she went on the attack, however, she allowed herself to appear nitpicky and eager to land a blow on Obama, as the issue of whether or not he had plagiarized parts of his speeches was beginning to seem old and insignificant by this point. For the most part, however, her debate performance was well coordinated, comforting, and full of substance. The moment that capped it all off was, of course, the answer Senator Clinton gave to the question of what she would consider the moment that had tested her the most. After alluding to her husband's affair, she wrapped up by stating that "no matter what happens in this contest, I am honored to be here with Barack Obama." The moment, which felt electric and genuine to many, showed how compassionate Hillary could be once again. It also showed how such a high-road strategy might pay off for her.

The downside to her closing comments? Many viewers and pundits considered her gracious words of friendship and hope for the country to be a sign that she was realizing that the end of her campaign was near and that she would step aside soon. This "valedictorian" claim was repeated quite often in the post-debate analysis, as she seemed to be publicly acknowledging the state of her own campaign and the need to unite behind Barack once she had left the race. In addition, bloggers even managed to find comments John Edwards had made that echoed, or "plagiarized," many of her sentiments from, what her campaign would refer to as, "the moment."

If this was meant to be another New Hampshire-style emotional moment that made Hillary seem real and vulnerable to voters, her strong words against Senator Obama the day after were designed to do just the opposite. It seems that her campaign realized the need to stop all of the talk about her dropping out and go on the offensive with harsh attacks. She did so in response to fliers the Obama campaign had been producing that called into question her record and positions on health care and trade agreements. Hillary's campaign had previously spoken out against such claims and tactics, but Hillary took this as an opportunity to blast Senator Obama herself in public and create a media-friendly sound bite. Therefore, she exclaimed, "Shame on you, Barack Obama." This moment changed her image from friendly to furious in just over one day's time. It was interesting to watch both tactics being used, and even more interesting to note that her positive, hopeful message had resonated more with voters and seemed to benefit her image more. Maybe she had finally picked something up from her Democratic rival, at least for the moment.

Clinton closes the Texas debate

I am sure we will discuss this tomorrow, but I wanted to make sure everyone had seen the very end of the Democratic debate in Texas. Senator Clinton made a powerful argument about her experiences and offered an interesting perspective on the campaign.

Audacity: In Her Own Words

A new low for Hillary in this Youtube post.

In an effort to douse the optimism of would-be Obama supporters, Sen. Clinton suggests that the hope of uniting Red & Blue, Dem & Conservative, is foolish. Yeah, right, she says, "The sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect."

How, exactly, given this charming worldview, does Ms. Clinton propose to get legislation passed through a bipartisan Congress?

The Audacity of Hopelessness, but this time In Her Own Words.

Mariachis for Obama

Mariachis have now joined the Youtube 2008 campaign.

Somebody please teach me how to do a screen grab for Youtube links!



GS - Video added. Just make sure to paste in the url under the 'embed' label on the top right of a youtube screen.

Obama -- Avoiding the National Media

The article “Obama Stiffles, Stiffles National Press” that appeared on the politico.com describes a new practice adopted by Senator Obama – avoiding the National Press. National correspondents are not allowed to monitor interviews Obama gives to the local media outlets and traveling media has no access to the candidate during flights, the usual practice for Clinton and McCain. Contrary, breaking all traditions of Republican candidates being distant from the media, McCain goes out of his way to develop positive relationship with National Reporters, even if it means “sitting them on his campaign bus”. Doing this, he develops necessary media connections that will prove useful during the national campaign.
Obama’s choice of avoiding National Media has been a common strategy of the frontrunners in the previous elections. However, just looking at the candidates, one can understand that this election is not like any other one. Moreover, Barack Obama has been critiquing Clinton for the lack of transparency and media coverage when the senate voted on the first healthcare reform. Why when he is committing the same mistake and denying people from “non-crucial” states the right to follow his campaign closely.
Is the Senator afraid that the media will discover inconsistencies or he is just not comfortable speaking without his speechwriters?
Regardless of the reason, by avoiding the National Press, Barack Obama is loosing necessary connections to ensure proportioned and favorable media coverage in case he becomes a democratic nominee.

New Poll Results Disclose Dire News for Clinton's Campaign

The New York Times is currently running an article in which it reveals that since December, Obama’s support has been steadily increasing in the most recent Times/CBS and USA Today/Gallup polls. Indeed, 67% of Democratic voters believe that Obama has the ability to unite the country, and 6 out of 10 believe that he is the candidate most capable of beating John McCain in the national election. However, Clinton is still regarded as the Democratic candidate that is best equipped for the nation’s executive position. Clinton has furthermore been able to maintain her strong female following, but Obama has caught up to her numbers, therefore cleanly splitting the demographic in half in terms of support between the candidates. The polls also reveal that at long last the Republican party has rallied behind John McCain, with 8 out of 10 acknowledging that “they would be satisfied” if he won the nomination, though “just 3 in 10 said they would be very satisfied,” thus reflecting the far right’s reservations over his more moderate nature.

With the release of this new information, it is becoming more and more apparent that Hillary must win in both Texas and Ohio in order to retain even a semblance of relevance in the race. While her team has faith that wins in the two states will bring her back from the brink, the polls’ revelation that less than half of Democratic voters feel that Clinton cares them versus over half of voters feeling that Obama does truly care about them should be incredibly troubling.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/us/politics/26poll.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

Another Clinton Smear at Obama

A recent Politico article brought to light yet another dirty attempt by the Clinton campaign to smear Obama. They were accused of circulating this photo (right), which clearly alludes to Obama's alleged Mulsim connections, a problem he has been dealing with throughout the campaign.

Obama's camp called this stunt "shameful, offensive fear mongering."

The Clinton campaign responded by saying that “If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely." They went on to say that we should concentrate on real issues, saying "We will not be distracted."

Isn't it a contradiction to release a controversial photo and then decry the media for paying attention? Instead of circumventing responsibility, they are talking about focusing the issues. I feel like this is really childish, messy, and dirty, and I am disappointed. Whether or not this is true, it still puts a negative suspicion on Obama's credibility.

How low will Hillary go? I liked her!!! My expectations of her and her campaign are at a new low. Maybe I'm too new to politics, but this seems wrong. Is this a typical political ploy?

Hillary the "Children's Advocate?"

Hillary claims she has the experience and has fought for change throughout her career. Through Politico's Ben Smith's blog he referenced an article. The article states: "Hillary Rodham Clinton often invokes her '35 years of experience making change' on the campaign trail, recounting her work in the 1970s on behalf of battered and neglected children and impoverished legal-aid clients."

Further on the author indicates that at 27 she was the attorney of a man accused of rape. She used her knowledge in child development to discredit the 12 year-old girl. I know this is what some lawyers do, but I think this contradicts her current message. This article isn't getting much attention right now. I wonder if it'll get more coverage later or whether her opponents will use it against her. Right now, the popular item is Obama's picture on Drudge Report. The information online seems limitless as if something new is uncovered everyday about the candidates.

Republican Party’s Fear of being called “Racist” or “Sexist”

The Politico posted an article entitled “GOP fears charges of racism, sexism,” which I found very interesting. This article basically states that top Republican strategists are working on plans to protect the GOP from charges of racism or sexism in the general election, as they prepare for a presidential campaign against the first ever African-American or female Democratic nominee. Republicans will be told to “be sensitive to tone, and to stick to the substance of the discussion” and that “the key is that you have to be sensitive to the fact that you are running against historic firsts,” a strategist explained.

 It seems to me as if the Republican candidate for this election will have to “walk on eggshells” so to speak. They will have to be restricted in their thoughts and speech because their every word will be highly monitored and criticized. If something that they say comes out wrong or sounds remotely offensive, even if it wasn’t intended to sound that way, they will be highly scrutinized for their remarks. It almost seems as if the democratic candidate, either Obama or Clinton, will indefinitely have the upper hand because of this. They will have more leeway and freedom and to verbally attack their opponent. This is just my personal opinion, so what do you think? Do you agree or disagree?

Nader Joins the Race

Ralph Nader announced Sunday that he was going to enter the presidential race for the fourth consecutive time. Shortly after announcing his candidacy, he was attacked by both democratic candidates, saying that he is going to hurt their chances of defeating Senator McCain. According to a CNN article, Nader claims that, "we have to give the system more competition, more voices, more choices, more freedom, more diversity," as his reasoning for running.

It will be interesting to see how his decision to run again will affect the election in anyway. Personally I feel that Ralph Nader can not be taken seriously as a candidate, but if he is able to collect some votes, I think that democratic party may suffer.


"http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/25/nader/index.html">http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/25/nader/index.html

Where are the Dems Oppo?

It seems that in the past few weeks there have been a variety of articles about how the Republicans would attack Obama in the general election. There was the RNC event a few weeks ago where they outlined their plan for attacking Obama. It seems every week there is a new story or article regarding strategies for going after him. I am not surprised that the Republicans are gearing up but where are the Dems? Why are there no stories on ways to hit McCain?

Part of the problems for the Democrats has been their inability to go negative with the Republicans. Yes, Dems haven't decided on a candidate yet and therefore can't truly prepare to hit McCain until they have a nominee but thematically Clinton or Obama could hit him on the same issues. As a frustrated Democrat, I really would like to see some strategy, some early plans to attack McCain without involving the NYT.

Howard Dean, please take some of that enthusiasm from your 2004 campaign and do some good opposition research and develop some strong strategies for hitting the 72 year old Senator. You know they Republicans have because it is all over the paper.

post-debate spin + ad = $$$$?

One of the most memorable parts of Thursday's debate between Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama was Clinton's evocative final remarks regarding the "moment of crises" that "tested [her] the most." After answering, "Well, I think everybody here knows I've lived through some crises and some challenging moments in my life,” she went on to talk about how “the hits I've taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country. And I resolved at a very young age that I'd been blessed and that I was called by my faith and by my upbringing to do what I could to give others the same opportunities and blessings that I took for granted. That's what gets me up in the morning. That's what motivates me in this campaign.” This comment garnered a supportive and enthusiastic standing ovation from the audience, and the Clinton campaign wasted no time in running with it. Trying to create the same success as after her famed New Hampshire tear-up (which a Politico blog claimed helped her secure the victory there) the campaign created an ad using the debate footage.

This ad, which shows a softer and more human side of Hillary, deviates from her "safe, steady, commander-in-chief" image which her team has worked so hard to create. But, judging from the positive response when Clinton has shown vulnerability before, is a woman's touch what her image needs? I find this to be a serious and overlooked gender issue for Clinton because she does not want to seem to fragile to be a leader, but her cold but steady image isn't working very well either. This is a great challenge for her campaign, and I don't think male leaders have to face this dilemma. The Clinton team does its best circumvent the problem by framing it not as vulnerability, but as passion for the wellbeing of Americans.

Another interesting thing going on here is her tactic to raise funds for the ad. Everyone knows she is "struggling" in the campaign financially compared to Obama, and so she is posting this ad on her site stating that "everyone in the upcoming primary states of Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, and Vermont needs to see that moment...but we cannot run it without your immediate financial support. We need to raise $1.3 million to put this ad on the air. " What do you think? Is this a clever tactic?

The (Now) Buried Lead!

A shout-out to J Goebel for finding this gem:

A Slate magazine mash-up of the film "Election". Hillary as a terribly embittered high schooler losing ground to a rising political rock star. Complete with a cameo of the Obama Girl.

Who ever imagined democracy could be so much fun? How will we ever return to the stodgy campaigns of old?? The best part: this new model (of representative, participatory democracy--with a wry sense of humor) is being exported worldwide!

Frank Rich, New York Times op-ed columnist, had a seering indictment of the Clinton campaign in this week's Sunday edition.

"WHEN people one day look back at the remarkable implosion of the Hillary Clinton campaign," Rich writes, "they may notice that it both began and ended in the long dark shadow of Iraq." "It’s not just that her candidacy’s central premise — the priceless value of “experience” — was fatally poisoned from the start by her still ill-explained vote to authorize the fiasco. Senator Clinton then compounded that 2002 misjudgment by pursuing a 2008 campaign strategy that uncannily mimicked the disastrous Bush Iraq war plan. After promising a cakewalk to the nomination — “It will be me,” Mrs. Clinton told Katie Couric in November — she was routed by an insurgency."

Hillary's camp never imagined having to plan past Feb. 4th. They disregard, and have outright insulted, voters who opt for anyone other than Ms. Clinton herself, arguing that the wishes of voters in "Red" and smaller delegate states are of little consequence. Like the campaign of "shock-and-awe" in Iraq, the inevitability of her victory should have by now whipped any naysayers into shape. A nice retort from the op-ed pages of a paper whose editors came out to endorse Ms. Clinton.

Obama's Patriotism

The Republican Party has already started taking shots at Presidential candidate Barack Obama, who has recently received focus of possibly achieving the frontrunner status after sweeping the month of February primaries and caucuses. The most recent point of attack surrounds Obama's patriotism, following his wife, Michelle Obama's comment about being really proud of the United States. In addition, Obama has been criticized for not wearing an American flag pin during his campaign and that he was once seen without his hand on his heart during the national anthem. Obama's response to the reporter who questioned him on he topic included that this was simply the next effort to bring him negative press. He triumphed when he recalled:

"You will recall that the reason I came to national attention was a speech in which I spoke of my love of this country."

He furthered explained his wife's comment, clarifying that it was in regards to the turnout throughout the elections. He addressed the hand over his heart as something that three-quarters of people at sporting events do not cover their heart, and he added that wearing a pin should have nothing to with patriotism as the Republicans has decided it should. All in all, he did a very good job at defending himself and his patriotism, again quickly putting an end to any bad press that his campaign receives. He seems to handle take any bad press and turn it into positive, free airtime.




Information from this blog was found on CNN @ http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/24/obama.patriotism/index.html

Should Hillary Have The Right?

Should Hillary have the right to feel ill-will towards Ralph Nader as he prepares to run on the independent ticket again for the 2008 election? Obviously she can feel however she wants to feel, bu her comments were not without warrant. In the 2000 election, the controversial election between President George W. Bush and former Vice President Al Gore might have turned out differently had Ralph Nader not taken a percentage of the vote. People choosing to vote for Nader were predominately left wing voters who Gore expected when the election took place. Today,

Clinton responded to word that Nader was joining the election again with disappointment. She said, "His being on the Green Party prevented Al Gore from being the greenest president we could have had, and I think that’s really unfortunate. I think we paid a big price for it. I’m pretty sad about that."

Hillary went on to say, "This time I hope it doesn’t hurt anybody. I hope it’s kind of a passing fancy that people don’t take too seriously.”

Her comments raise a very important question. I thought about Gore's loss in 2000, and although Nader took a portion of the popular vote from Gore, he can't be held responsible for the loss.

In 2000, no one knew just how pivotal the election would be. As a liberal, I supported Gore for the presidency but it's hard to fault others for their opinions. We are a democracy for a reason. We are a free country for a reason. I think that the Gore party was in part to blame for the loss. Gore came off as a very straight and narrow man lacking personality.

I wish Gore had produced his documentary before his election, as the Gore we know today is a lot more personable then the man we met in 2000.

The past is this past. We made mistakes in the past (most notably electing President Bush to a second term), but now we need to move forward. If Nader wants to run, that is his choice. It is the responsibility of the Democratic nominee (whoever that may be), to run a strong campaign, convincing voters that they are the better candidate. This means being a better candidate then Republicans and Independents alike. What do you guys think about Hillary's comments? What about Nader's announcement?

Information taken from: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8657.html
"Clinton Slams Nader Over Presidential Bid"

Obama and Republicans Skip 'State of the Black Union'

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/23/obama.sobu/index.html

I, for one, am not quite sure how much of a story Obama's absence at this event is, but I *do* think it's notable who else *didn't* show up...This isn't to say that I'm giving Obama a pass for skipping this event in order to campaign, it's just that I'm pretty sure he's aware of the issues plaguing the black community since he's lived every day of his life as a black man, and he can definitely relate to the black experience. But his absence is a problem, at least for the media, because he's black. Shouldn't the real problem be that no Republicans showed up? And isn't it bad that even the media isn't surprised that no Republicans came to the event? I understand that Republicans have pretty much written off getting black people to vote for them for 40 years now, but I think that not attending events like this perpetuates the stereotype that Republicans don't care about black people or the issues plaguing the black community at all- something that I don't believe is true.

I think that the nature of politics in this country is due for a major change...Our generation holds some different beliefs than our parents, and with this primary season so far, we're seeing that young people aren't holding so tightly to party lines the way our parents are. Now would be a good time for Republicans to try to win some of us back...So why aren't they doing it?

Clinton's kindred spirit on the big screen: a petulant overachiever?

In honor of the Oscars, which take place tonight, I am posting a video mash-up that likens Hillary Clinton to Tracy Flick, Reese Witherspoon’s character in the 1999 film “Election.” In the movie, Flick is a diligent, driven young woman who climbed the ranks of student government before running for its highest office: Student Body President. It seems that the election is likely to play out according to her careful designs—until a popular, “cool” male student joins the race and threatens her inevitability. Sound familiar?

Watch the video here: http://slatev.com/player.html?id=1377935786

Columnist Frank Rich mentioned the mash-up today in a New York Times article that traces the “remarkable implosion of the Clinton campaign.” The article sheds light on how Clinton’s odds went from “inevitable” to “outside chance” in a matter of months. The video is offered as a silly way to illustrate real complaints from Clinton supporters that Obama’s popularity is somehow unearned; they suggest that his youth and gender allow him to surpass her in a sexist culture that values style over substance.

Read the article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinion/24rich.html?th&emc=th

Anyone else expecting/hoping for political overtones in acceptance speeches tonight? Maybe, more subtly, a campaign button on an evening gown? Considering the star-studded crowd at last month’s Democratic debate in the Kodak Theatre, I’m betting some of the same celebs will return to Kodak tonight. We’ll soon find out if they can resist using this enormous stage to voice their views while they have the attention of millions of Americans…

Borrowing 'just words'

It seems that Obama has been accused of plagiarism. Him and Deval Patrick happened to have used the same exact speech, where both invoke the words of FDR, MLK and JFK. Although Senator Obama says that he was not only given permission to use the same speech, but that his close friend Deval actually recommended for him to do so doesn’t seem to be enough for Senator Clinton. What has befuddled everybody is not just the accusation, but the fact that both speakers invoke some of the greatest lines throughout history. If we want to go about accusing everyone, Hillary, we’ll never get around to it. While Senator Clinton has a good point of using your own words throughout a campaign, what’s the big taboo on referring to some of the best-known and loved leaders of this country? Was Obama not in fact likened to Kennedy’s face of change? These effective speech tactics work- why not use them to mobilize your audience. The Clinton camp must be getting to the end of their rope. Now they’re just trying to tie a knot and hang on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wLjiq7lN1A

Nadia S.

Obama’s unexpected endorsement

I could not resist to the envy to write about the so-called John McCain’s scandal and the article written and published in the last Thursday New York Times issue. What the article revealed is that Senator John McCain would have lobbied for the client of a lobbyist, with whom, in addition, he would have had a romantic relationship.
I was struck by the article itself for many reasons. Firstly, the article looks like a recollection of John McCain’s dubious past as an elected representative. Secondly, the article is based upon information that the journalist seems to be unable to prove. Indeed, as for his so-called involvement in the Keating Five scandal, McCain never got sentenced, but just reprimanded for poor judgment. As for the pretended romantic relation he would have had with a lobbyist, both John McCain and Vicki Iseman said they never had such a relation. Thirdly and mainly, the article raises the question of its own purpose; what is the relevance of such an article at a time in the campaign where McCain’s nomination seems to be established and where the Democratic nomination has never been so uncertain.
As far as I am concerned, I think that the article brings us back to the New York Times’ endorsements. The newspaper has endorsed Hillary R. Clinton and John McCain. It is first surprising that the New York Times seeks to confound a candidate it has endorsed. I also wonder whether the newspaper is not looking to modify its choice. Indeed, who really benefits from this accusation? If it probably undermines McCain’s integrity, it does not benefit to his challenger, Mike Huckabee, who is now far behind him. Yet, the beneficiary might be among the democratic candidates. Between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, it is certainly Obama who is going to enjoy the New York Times’ denunciation. Indeed, he is the one who is the youngest in politics and the one who embodies the change with practices perpetuated by the previous generation of politicians to which belongs Hillary Clinton. With this article, the New York Times has endorsed Barack Obama.

Hmm... a more literal attempt at identifying every voter

http://www.hillaryspeaksforme.com/

Supposedly it's all videos submitted by users, and you're invited to submit your own.

Oh Hillary, you're so hip with your distressed typewriter font.

Huckabee explains why he is still in the race

For anyone who was wondering how the Huckabee campaign is still energizing supporters, you only need to listen to the candidate himself. This is a strong explanation and a direct rebuke to the GOP supporters backing McCain.

When surrogates hurt

We spent a lot of time discussing the role of surrogacy when former President Clinton had such a prominent role, but it seems like the Obama campaign found a surrogate who really wasn't ready for such a prominent role. Kirk Watson, a state Senator from Texas, appeared on Hardball last night and provided one of the roughest performances that you will ever see from a surrogate.


Knowing that this couldn't go without discussion, Senator Watson provided an apology on his website today.

Clinton Media in Ohio

Yesterday's discussion leads nicely to a couple of stories emerging about Sen. Clinton's media strategy in key states like Ohio. Assuming that her campaign perceives Sen. Obama has having momentum it isn't surprising to see them embrace a more accelerated ad campaign in the next round of important primaries. Two items to keep in mind.

1) Marc Ambinder of the Atlantic discusses the coming role for pro-Clinton 527 groups in Ohio.

Allies of Hillary Clinton plan an expensive, stealth campaign to buttress her standing in the must-win states of Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania.
They're canvassing Clinton donors for pledges of up to $100,000 in the hope of raising at least $10M by the end of next week. The money will be placed in the account of a political committee organized under section 527 of the tax code.

UPDATE: Here is the ad


2) We watched Clinton's new 'Night Shift' ad. I am linking it below and encouraging folks to see if it the ad gains any 'megaphone' effect of additional coverage in free media. Remember we speculated about the role that the ad's closing line 'she has worked the night shift too' might generate. Please do comment if you notice any such coverage.

Dirty Tactics?

Given the close nature of this years’ primaries, there seems to be a renewed interest in the role of delegates and superdelegates in the election. As recent posts on the blog show, the role of superdelegates is questionable yet nonetheless vital to this year’s election. In reading news today, however, I found something even more intriguing: Clinton’s new delegate strategy. Top-ranking campaign officials have confirmed that Clinton is pursuing a strategy of stealing currently pledged delegates (as opposed to officially un-pledged superdelegates) away from Obama. There is nothing that technically prohibits this strategy. I think it reveals two important things. First, it seems this strategy could be portrayed as weakness on the side of the Clinton campaign, having to do anything possible to gain extra possible votes. Second, I think it is good initial foreshadowing of events to come in the primaries. ‘As the race remains extremely close, the Clinton campaign has shown little qualms about resorting to questionable tactics. Will they pay off? Will Obama have to find a way to respond? Only time will tell.

This article helped contribute:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8583.html

Spreading Democracy....to Cuba?

The cat's out of the bag...Fidel Castro is out as President of Cuba, and while the White House has no immediate plans to lift sanctions on the country, I can't help but wonder if Cuba would be the next place Bush would try to "spread democracy" a la Iraq if he had more time in office....So now I have to wonder how big of a policy issue will Cuba be for the rest of the campaign season? With Castro's brother Raul, who is a little friendlier to the West, taking the helm, one has to wonder if Cuba may actually experience a democratic movement...and what role the US will play in that happening.

I'm eager to see what the candidates' stance on Cuba will be...It's clear that communism isn't going to take hold in America anytime soon, so should we keep the sanctions we currently have, now that the "Red Scare" is long dead? Or does "new" leadership in Cuba mean a new day in Cuba-US relations?

I know I'll be watching over the next few weeks just to see what stance each of the candidates take towards the future of Cuba.

The Democratic Circus

With McCain having the Republican nomination in the bag, it looks as if the Democratic circus is back in action. It opened earlier January with a competitive jousting match. Each side took jabs at the other and even former President Bill Clinton joined in on the fun. The Clinton campaign ran commercials against Senator Obama and Obama gave Senator Clinton the cold shoulder at the State of the Union Address. The debate in South Carolina was just a joke. The two candidates battles to the finish and the Democratic party was divided. It appeared as if everything had changed as January ended and February began. The Obama and Clinton worked together to unite the Democratic Party heading into Super Tuesday. They were like the jugglers staying in sync with one another at the debate in Los Angeles. The message sent out was that it's the Republicans we must be weary of.

However, as the campaign has turned the corner with the finish line in sight, Obama has gained a momentum that the Clinton campaign cannot seem to slow. Ladies and Gentleman, the clown car has arrived. As 20 or more clowns hop out of a tiny VW bug, the Democratic Primary is becoming a joke. Obama is trying to continue his momentum by doing what he does best, public speaking. The Clinton campaign is attempting to slow him down by finding the faults in his speeches and announcing it to the public. Was it right for Obama to borrow words from a friend's speech when the "share ideas"? That is for you to decide. Did the Clinton Campaign make the right move accusing Obama of plagiarism? That is for you to decide too. All that is for certain is that it has become easy to make a mockery of what is happening in the Democratic Primaries. The candidates better get it together and not divide their constituents if they want a Democrat in office come January.

What it really boils down to..

Superdelegates.

I don't think that I am alone when I say that the idea of superdelegates is counterproductive to a democratic election process. What is the point of having candidates run these extensive campaigns, and creating all of the momentum surrounding the importance of primaries in determining the party nominee, when it looks as if the democratic nomination this year is going to rest on the decision of only 20 percent of the electorate. I understand that if neither Obama or Clinton are able to get the majority of delegates since they are running such a close race, that something must be done, but it does not seem fair that the decision be ultimately derived from the democratic elite. Why should members, governors, and senators have the last say? If the purpose is to enable a winner, then it would seem to make more sense that all delegates just be pledged delegates. If their role is to determine a majority, then by voting like everyone else, maybe a clear winner would be able to emerge. While some superdelegates may have already made a choice in their minds, I still believe that allowing them final say is giving their voice too much weight. Granted, I will admit that I could quite possibly just not understand the whole delegate process, but at a glance, I find it unsettling. 

A Cheap Shot!

I am a devoted Hilary Clinton supporter! I believe her brilliance and experience surpass any
candidate's association and promise to 'change' society.. actions speak louder than words; and Hillary has been in the business of politics much longer.. frankly, I don't think obama has run a good campaign.. yes, he raised more than Hillary, but until today I am not sure what kind of change he is talking about!!!! She is the most intelligent candidate on the democratic, and republican for that matter, end and knows her domestic and foreign policies to a science.. she is brilliant and has surpassed any of my expectations at every one of her debates.

However, as her campaign is not doing as well as before I can't help but lose respect for her. Her campaign is taking cheap shots at Obama. Such as accusing him of perjury because of a speech that he made. I thin it is pretty obvious he cant write his own speeches, that is why we has gained so much support, because of his way with his words. It is usual to restate famous or motivational lines. Obama has already written two books, prior to his experience with politics, and is well know for how he can articulate himself. The shot of perjury just shows that the Hilary campaign is desperate and unable to remain humble to gain sincere and genuine support!

Has Bill Really Hurt Hilary?

Bill Clinton is being accused of hurting his wife's campaign. Many campaign strategists and critics are claiming that his over involvement in his wife's campaign has hurt Hilary's campaign to the point that Obama is now looking like he might win the nomination. Earlier in the campaign, (prior to Super Tuesday) Hilary Clinton was being projected as the democratic candidate for the presidential election of 2008. Critics claim that Bill Clinton is overly involved and his speeches often create controversy and it puts the Hilary campaign in a "desperate" position to take cheap shots at Obama's campaign. How much is a spouse actually suppose to help in a presidential election? What kind of boundries are there?
Another reason that Bill Clinton's involvement is deterring voters is because people do not like the idea of the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton dynasty and having Bill Clinton overly involved means that it will resemble more like a dynasty. He is accused of double edging her campaign and this was especially true with the South Carolina Democratic primary. Many polls indicate that his choices and speeches are risk taking and are not as effective as Hilary and ultimately do not send the same message as his wife does. This creates inconsistency in the campaign and it also makes many people question the real motive to why another Clinton wants to the claim the presidential position.
Lastly, Bill's controversial comments about Jesse Jackson and also his extra presence in the campaign make people question who is really running for president, Bill or Hilary? This is extremely ironic because as Americans we always want to see these candidates families and to see they are humane, however when is it too much? OR do we just not like the Clinton family?

Just Words!

Wow! Barrack Obama sure did lose the last news cycle before the Wisconsin primary. If all you are good at is speeches, and you are lifting your speeches without giving credit to the author, Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts, then what are you? I can’t believe the Messiah, Barrack Obama, did not have a writer who could come up with his own words for the Junior Senator from Illinois to use. It is one thing if everyone knows that you are referencing something that is someone else’s. If you say, “I have a dream,” there is no need to give credit. If John McCain or Hillary Clinton says that they “are fired up and ready to go,” there is no need to give credit because everyone knows that that is a shot at Barrack Obama. But I would say that not that many people know who Deval Patrick is. That is the difference. The Barrack Obama phenomenon is the biggest religious movement since the Goreical brought us global warming. Barrack Obama preaches about “changing business as usual.” This means that he is going to be held to a higher standard then everyone else. I guess Barrack Obama works in mysterious ways.

McCain Plus 1, Please

McCain is charming his way through the Republican Party. Now with President George H.W. Bush's endorsement under his belt, McCain can add increased credibility to his growing list of achievements. Not only does the endorsement connect him to the rest of the influential Bush family, even garnering President George W. Bush's opinion that "if John's the nominee, he'll win," but it also reassures the conservative Republicans in the GOP that McCain might be worthy of their votes. He's going to use this endorsement to impress conservatives for as long as it will carry him.

41's endorsement is more than a major win for McCain, however. It's a way to stay active in the media. What with Hillary and Obama hogging the spotlight, it makes it difficult for any Republican to find another 15 minutes of fame. McCain is going to have to work hard to continue being noticed in a favorable light while continuing to earn the support of wary conservatives in the Republican Party.

Hillary needs to secure voter loyalty

The Contra Costa Times, a Bay Area newspaper, published an article this weekend about how Hillary is trying to find more money in California. Although she is trying to raise money for her campaign, she is no where to be found in California. Instead, Bill is in the state holding fundraisers on her behalf. One part of the article that I found particularly interesting was about the Hasan family opening their Saratoga home to Bill and as many as 100 friends in attempts to raise money for Hillary's campaign. This is the second time that the Hasan's have opened their home to Hillary in the past 8 months. Kamil Hasan is actually one of the states superdelegates, and Hillary is trying to solidify his loyalty to her. While Kamil has opened his home to Hillary twice in the campaign he has said that although he likes Hillary, he likes Obama too. In fact, he has yet to declare who he will vote for in the August Democratic convention, and has told the Clinton campaign that he will "absolutely consider" voting for her.

What I find so interesting is that we have a man who has opened his home to Hillary and has encouraged his friends and members of his community to give money to her campaign, yet he doesn't even know if he likes her more than he likes Obama. As the race pushes forward it is essential for Hillary to gain unconditional loyalty from her supporters because who knows how many are still undecided like Kamil.

http://www.contracostatimes.com/search/ci_8288794

McCain versus Obama?

With MSNBC reporting that the Clinton camp's recent attacks on Obama have now turned to plagiarism accusations, it is looking as if Clinton is grasping at straws to maintain her presence in the race. Citing the fact that some of Obama’s January speeches had uncanny resemblances to those of his friend, Massachusetts’ Governor Deval Patrick, Clinton again centered her critique on Obama’s rhetoric. Obama was swift in his nonchalant response that it was “not too big of a deal,” and he has become almost equally lackadaisical towards the threat of his Democratic opponent. As recent as last week, instead of focusing on their respective partisan opponents, Obama and McCain were directing their speeches towards each other. Coupling this seeming dismissal of Clinton as a viable candidate with the latest media outlets beginning to spotlight their coverage on the two men, more and more it appears that despite the states that have yet to cast their votes, the race is coming down to Obama and McCain on the presidential ticket.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23223921/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23166642/

Obama’s dreamers…

The proof that Sen. Barack Obama has the momentum is the countless articles written, not only about him and his presidential campaign, but also about the cult he has inspired. Amongst the articles piling up on my desk, I came across two new articles about Obamaphilia. Recent polls point out that Obama has managed to blur the divide within the society. Although he is still struggling with the Hispanic vote, Obama wins over white, black, women, men, poor and rich electorates. Yet, two articles from the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times highlight the last divide that Obama has not bridged so far; the generational one.
Rather than talking about young people versus old people, the articles prefer the dichotomy between the realists and the dreamers. The realists think that, despite his qualities, Obama will not win the Democratic nomination because “there is still a great deal of racial prejudice in the U.S., and thus a substantial percentage of whites who will not vote for a black candidate for president under any circumstance” (Winds of change, N.Y. Times, February 5th). As for dreamers, they express great interest in the election but seem unconcerned with such factors as Obama’s race or perceived electability. As the New York Times’ journalist says, “they are just fed up with the status quo, and they want change. And they’ve found a rock star who embodies their desire.”The Los Angeles Times’ article wants to be even more persuasive. The journalist pretends to hesitate: “did I want to be some dreamer hippie loser, or a person who understands that change emerges from hard work and conflict?” (The cult of Obama, L.A. Times, February 8th). Finally, the journalist asserts: “what the Cult of Obama doesn’t realize is that he’s a politician. Not a brave one taking risky positions like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, but a mainstream one.” A couple of days after these articles were written, we can say that Obama has now the momentum. The remaining divide seems to be that between optimists and pessimists.

How Hillary Can Still Win...Or Can She?

Ben Smith wrote an article explaining the strategies that Hillary can use to pull out a win over Obama. He explains that although she has gone from front-runner to underdog, the race is not over and with the many surprises we have seen this campaign, she can definitely come out on top. He explains many strategists say Clinton’s only chance is to continue to bring down Obama for his lack of experience as well as by attacking his readiness to lead. This has been one of her main criticisms of Obama throughout the entire campaign and I don’t know how much of an effect this will have if she continues to make this same attack. I would think that most people have already heard this attack from Hillary on Obama and I’m not sure how much it can help her at this point if it hasn’t helped her already. Smith writes, “There is no secret to where Obama’s weakness lies: Every poll and strategists from both parties have long pointed to both his real and perceived lack of experience.” Smith makes it seem as though this is the only weakness that Hillary can criticize Obama on. If this is the main weakness that people are focusing on, then I would say he must be a strong candidate because “lack of experience” does not make him incapable of being president and it does not seem to be doing too much harm to his campaign. Smith even points out, “Clinton’s attempts to contrast her years in public life with his do not seem to have made an impact so far, and she may be forced to turn up the heat.” I agree; if she wants a chance at winning, she needs to do more than attack Obama on his readiness.

Is Huckabee hurting the Republican Party?

This question has been raised more frequently recently, especially after Mitt Romney conceded defeat for the Republican nomination. As voters in Wisconsin, Hawaii, and Washington State go to the polls this week, the importance for the Democratic nomination far outweighs that of the Republican race. Senator John McCain has already won 830 votes, coming closer and closer to the 1,191 delegates needed to secure the nomination. For some, Mike Huckabee's determination is admirable, but as Romney hinted to when he stepped out of the race, staying in the race only takes away from time McCain could be spending on a national campaign for the presidency. Romney said that the party needed to unite, but Huckabee argues that every American deserves a choice. "The former Arkansas governor has vowed to stay in the race until McCain has enough delegates to win the nomination, saying voters deserve a choice."

Huckabee is a very conservative candidate, and runs a campaign centered around the idea that he is the only true conservative left in the race. This may be true, but his time is running out. If Huckabee continues to fight until the end, he might make it a very short race for the Republican party. Although Huckabee wants everyone to have a choice, he could ultimately be to blame for a Democratic victory in November. What do you think? Do you think Huckabee is hurting the Republicans, or is does it have little bearing on November?

Information for this article obtained from: "Dem's battle for Wisconsin, Hawaii; McCain Wants Knockout"-http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/18/feb19.contests/index.html

Reflecting on a Missed Opportunity

I know that normally we use a specific format, one in which we comment on a specific political event or article occurring in the last week. I thought, given the fact that this election is nearing it's climax, that I would reflect on the past couple of weeks, including Super Tuesday.

In another Communications course, we were asked to answer a question about voter preference in relation to Clinton and Obama. When I thought about, it was difficult for me to make a choice. I did not get to vote during the Primary because I did not submit my Absentee ballot in time. Although it didn't matter in my state (Clinton won New York), I don't know that I would've been able to make a choice that I was confident with. I think Obama has a lot of great ideas and his optimism and motivation for change are appealing, but his lack of experience is a concern. Clinton is clearly more prepared to enter office, but she does not exhibit the type of enthusiasm, or innovative personality I believe we need for the presidency.

I think Obama and Clinton are both huge improvements over our current administration, and my only concern is a continuation of the Bush Administration, in the form of another Republican president. Whether it's right or not, had I had the ballot in front of me, I would have chosen the candidate who I believe, would have the best chance of beating McCain.
I regret missing my chance to vote for the Primary. I think voting is a right everyone should be proud to exercise. I won't make that mistake twice. Whether or not you plan to vote Democrat or Republican, just make sure you vote. In this time of hardship and War we can't be thankful enough for our Democratic government. We are not a democracy if we don't do our part.

I'm excited to see how the primary elections in Wisconsin and Hawaii turn out this week.

The Bickering Is Back

Today, CNN reported that the Clinton campaign is back on attack, this time with allegations that Obama is stealing rhetoric from Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, as they claim that portions of the governor's gubernatorial speeches have found their way into Obama's speeches. Furthermore, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson stated that Obama should use his own words if he was going to be talking about the power that words carry. The Obama camp defended itself saying:

“Deval and I do trade ideas all the time, and you know he's occasionally used lines of mine, and I at a Jefferson Jackson dinner in Wisconsin used some words of his. And you know I would add I’ve noticed on occasion Sen. Clinton has used words of mine as well,” said Obama, adding, "…As I said before, I really don't think this is too big of a deal."

Obama's response serves to belittle this accusation by Clinton while at the same time pointing the finger right back at her allows him to take the attention off of himself. He also seems to take the high road claiming that this should not be viewed as a big deal. This reaction frames this attack as just another petty attempt for the Clinton campaign to get at Obama's campaign and stop his growing momentum. If Clinton had used some of Gov. Patrick's words and received a positive response, would it occur to her that it is so important as she claims to be 100% original in her word choice?

–CNN Associate Political Editor Rebecca Sinderbrand contributed to the CNN report.

Gun Shy

At a time when it appears, arguably, that something needs to be done in this country about gun rights, as ABC News points out, the Presidential candidates have remained largely silent. Both Obama and Clinton have avoided taking a direct stance on gun ownership laws, even in the aftermath of the four US school shootings that have taken place in the past week-- one at a junior-high school, one at a high school, and two on college campuses. Following the horrific violence that occurred last year at Virginia Tech, one might have assumed that gun rights would be an important issue in this year's Presidential campaign. It's a significant topic for many families of school-aged children in America, but it's not a topic that you'll hear being discussed by any of the leading Presidential contenders.

The reason? The NRA. After having witnessed the beating Al Gore took from the NRA in the 2000 campaign over his relatively tough position toward gun rights, both Obama and Clinton know that by taking a hard stance against lax gun laws, the National Rifle Association will come after you aggressively and try to portray you as an advocate of ending the Second Amendment- the right to bear arms. The NRA has proven itself to be a very powerful organization, and its political power is virtually unmatched by any other major lobbying body. The NRA has such tight control over politicians and has them in such a state of fear that, even in the immediate aftermath of the shootings at Virginia Tech, the idea of getting gun law reforms passed had been almost laughable. That's because every expert knows that politicians don't want to cross the NRA and face the wrath that would follow.

Looking at this issue, however, it seems clear to me that something needs to change. I may not be looking at this issue objectively, but I believe it's reasonable to think that a pattern of school shootings, like we've seen in recent days, is evidence enough that something about the gun culture in our society needs to be altered. At what point would Senators Obama or Clinton decide that it's time to stop being "afraid of getting the gun lobby upset" because the consequences of inaction are much more significant than the consequences of angering the NRA and the group of Americans that are loyal to their cause? The NRA may be what's holding these candidates back from taking a stronger position on gun rights, but, if that's the case, then what about this issue gives us, as citizens, any hope that the candidates won't bow to pressure from other interest groups once they are elected President? And if it takes silence on an issue as important as gun rights to get elected President or to stay in power in congress, then I'm not sure it's worth it.

It would be very refreshing to hear any of these candidates come out with direct proposals for how they would reform the process of gun ownership and gun safety in this country. Such bold moves would earn praise from family members affected by school violence as well as other concerned citizens in America who see that guns are too easily purchased from gun shows and gun dealers and too easily obtained by individuals who do not need to be anywhere near a weapon of any sort. While Obama and Clinton try to play it safe by pushing our government to "do a more effective job of enforcing our gun laws" and proclaiming their records of "protecting gun rights," in order to attract more conservative-leaning voters, they are not going far enough. They talk about regulation, but offer "no solutions or preventive measures," only their sympathies for those individuals affected by the recent shootings. Sympathies are not enough in this case, and they will not bring about the change we need to ensure that guns are used only by those people who deserve this privilege. Hillary likes to attack Barack for being all about words and promises, and not actions, but this is an instance where both candidates are noticeably silent and inactive, at just the wrong time.

Romney to officially endorse McCain

An article published by CNN reports that sources close to Romeny say he plans to announce is endorsement of McCain this afternoon. Romney wants to help McCain move faster to secure the nomination and unite the party for the general election against the Democrats in November. He will also "release" his delegates to to McCain. Although Romney has admitted to not agreeing with McCain about some issues, he definitely agrees more with McCain than he does with the democratic alternatives.

When Romeny officially left the race last week, he said "I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America. In this time of war I feel I have to now stand aside for our party and for our country." Romney wants members of his party to follow his lead and unite under one candidate, McCain. At this point in the race it is necessary for the party to become a unit and support one candidate if they wish to continue to have their party occupy the White House come November.

Obama-McCain matchup: bad for comedy?

An article in The New Republic raises an interesting, if peripheral, point: an Obama-McCain election would not be good for late-night comedy or satire programs like The Daily Show. It's pretty difficult to make fun of either candidate. In Obama's case, his stand-out traits include charisma, sincerity, and optimism--to mock such qualities could risk coming off as tacky or pessimistic. Also, due to his race, making fun may require caution; SNL players do not want to be accused of having poor taste. Similarly, McCain's history as a P.O.W. makes him relatively off-limits. True heroism isn't exactly a salient trait that lends itself to mockery.

When you consider such candidates as Al Gore, John Kerry, and George W. Bush, you realize how potent their public personas were to such comedy shows. The article points out that in this election, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, and John Edwards would provide much more easy fodder for comedy writers.

Believe me, I enjoy televised skewerings of politicians immensely. However, I think the Obama-McCain scenario might present an interesting opportunity for the comedic focus to shift to other absurd aspects of the election besides the candidates themselves. For example, skits could highlight the often inane media coverage of the campaign, the confusion of the primary system (superdelegates are begging for a send-up), or the one-upping pattern of endorsements (i.e. Schwarzenegger will beat up Chuck Norris...and that's before any parody!). In this way, such sketches could provide searing commentary about our electoral system as a whole rather than making caricatures of our Commander in Chief. Since our nation seems primed for an era of unity, not trivializing the presidency--especially after 8 years of Bush bashing, and before that the Lewinsky bonanza--could be a helpful change of pace.

Do you think Obama and McCain are in fact immune to satire? Who will play them on SNL?

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=1dcb1ebb-dd0f-4d5a-901b-5104f448e11d

The Other Campaign Spouse

While Bill Clinton has been at the front of much of the primary politics thus far this year, the New York Times published an interesting speech on Barak Obama’s wife, Michelle Obama. She brings a number of important assets to his campaign such as:

-strong oratory skills which allow her to give effective speeches, campaigning in different cities than Barak

-an emphasis upon unity rather than focusing on things like race and gender

-a bluntness that Barak certainly does not exude in his campaign

-a sense of humor that many people enjoy, though not always well-liked

This story is another excellent example of another possible reason, on top of recent developments such as Clinton’s campaign manager resigning, that Barak seems to have gained much of the momentum in the Democratic primaries. Bill Clinton’s campaigning for Hillary was generally attacking Barak directly, drawing a host of media attention, much of it negative. Behind the scenes, however, Michelle Obama has been working hard to help advance Barak’s campaign without drawing the same sort of negative fire.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/us/politics/14michelle.html?ei=5065&en=9f0714917e0c6d7e&ex=1203570000&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

Are Congratulations Truly Necessary?

After reading this article on CNN, I found it ironic how people were beginning to comment about how Hillary has not congratulated Obama for his past victories. In the beginning of the race, both candidates were well mannered and offered a sentence or two within their speeches in order to congratulate each other on victories or successful campaigns. But now with the separation between the two candidates minimal, neither candidate is going to go out of their way to congratulate their opponent on a victory.
Being an athlete, the best way for me to relate this personally is to imagine loosing a match by two points, and then having to go into a press conference and congratulate the other team. You do not normally do it unless you are force to; instead you focus on improving yourself and your team for the next competition. With that being said, I do not think that it is a big deal that Hillary is not congratulating Obama on every victory. With the stakes as high as they are right now, I feel that Clinton must focus on her own campaign rather than appreciate and acknowledge the successful campaign of her running mate.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/12/clinton-still-no-congratulations-for-obama/

john.he.is

Here's the video john.he.is mentioned by Lara C. below. It's quite good. 

Super Delegates Must Tread Carefully

The news organizations can't seem to stop talking about these super delegates. While the most recent CNN count has Hillary Clinton leading Barack Obama 234-156, none of this matters. Even taking this tally into account, 405 of the 795 super delegates have yet to tip their hat. This is a majority, and certainly enough to swing the nomination process significantly in one way or another. It may even be enough to swing the nomination to the candidate who has less votes and pledged delegates. However, this is unlikely to happen, and if it does, the Democratic Party would ruin itself. The wounds of the undemocratic outcome of the 2000 election are still fresh, and the Democratic Party cannot let its nominee be selected by undemocratic means. If this were to happen, party faithful would flee faster than you can say "presidency," and all chances of a democrat occupying the White House would melt away. Fortunately, it seems as though the party will not let this happen. Eleanor Norton Holmes, Washington D.C.'s non-voting congresswoman, outlined the correct principles that super delegates should abide in her endorsement of Barack Obama today:

The notion that a candidate who has not earned delegates could become the Democratic nominee for president is at odds with the democratic principles of our party reforms. Super delegates were never intended to allow the return of smoked-filled room, behind the scenes selection of our candidate. I have carried a banner for a democracy of the District of Columbia too long to depart from principles of democracy within my own party.

This is what super delegates should support - democracy. Fortunately, it looks like things are moving in this direction, but if the super delegates were to swing the nomination in an undemocratic way - to either candidate - you can count on a large number of people leaving the democratic party, including me. 

Huckabee, didn't you know that two makes a crowd?

It seems as though Huckabee just won't go away. If you do the math, McCain is the next Republican presidential nominee, and yet Huckabee isn't going anywhere. He acts as though he is the underdog for whom everyone is rooting and will win the race in the end. He enjoys the popularity and the publicity, and that is why he refuses to step down and graciously concede defeat during this primary season.

This is a problem for the Republicans because now that there is a clear front-runner, the Republicans should take this time to unite and begin concentrating on the general election while Hillary and Obama are still scrambling for votes and focusing on each other.

Huckabee should realize that this election is bigger that his personal campaign. His loyalties should lie with the Republican Party and what is best for the future of the Republican party, his party. Until he realizes what he should do, the Republicans are wasting time, energy, and money pretending McCain is not yet their Presidential nominee.

Candidates' daughters

As the primary campaign is getting tougher and tougher, candidates are ready to use any argument that could help them convince as many voters as possible. The week before Super Tuesday was the period for candidates to show their personal and family harmonies. To do so, presidential candidates were divided in two groups; while Senator Obama and Governor Romney preferred the traditional family picture with wife and children, Senators Clinton and McCain involved their daughters in a more active and contemporary way.
Indeed, Meghan McCain is very active on the blogosphere. She owns a blog and keeps on posting posts, comments and especially podcasts from the backstage. On substance, nothing really exciting, but her blog is cleverly done as it brings a new look on the campaign and the electronic soundtrack gives the impression of a young and modern campaign, contrasting with her father generation.
It’s not yet a phenomenon, but still, last weekend, international media have started focusing on Meghan McCain’s involvement in her dad’s campaign. Meghan McCain’s involvement contrasts with Chelsea Clinton’s one. Chelsea Clinton appears in almost every single meeting her mother is given. That is pretty much always what she has done since we know her and her parents.Since Chelsea has grown up, she now uses her celebrity to address directly to people on her mother’s behalf. That is what she does by calling celebrities and Democratic Party “superdelegates” on her mother’s behalf. However, in being more visible, Chelsea also takes the risk to concentrate attacks on her person. This is what happened last week when MSNBC anchor David Shuster said that “the Clinton campaign had pimped out Chelsea.” The day after, an open-ed of the LA Times told the story about an email that Chelsea forwarded to her numerous contacts. The email was about feminist Robin Morgan and the addendum to her 1970 essay Good bye to all of that. In her addendum, Morgan makes Hillary Clinton into a conduit for female struggles of every imaginable variety. The LA Times regretted that Chelsea has considered that piece as a valuable argument to bring in the debate.

Well, You Reap What You Sew...

Remember in class when I declared my true musings would be about who the really crazy people endorsed, and specifically cited Ann Coulter as one of the endorsers I was interested in. Well, she's announced it: Clinton?

"In the latest sign that a conservative backlash is starting to build against John MCain, conservative commentator Ann Coulter said Thursday she is prepared to vote for Hillary Clinton over the Arizona senator in a general election match up.

Speaking on Fox's "Hannity and Colmes," Coulter took aim at the GOP frontrunner, and suggested he was little more than a Republican in name only.

"If you are looking at substance rather than if there is an R or a D after his name, manifestly, if he's our candidate, than Hillary is going to be our girl, because she's more conservative than he is," Coulter said. "I think she would be stronger on the war on terrorism."

Coulter took aim at McCain's positions — particularly his fervent anti-torture stance — and said he and Clinton differ little on the issues. Coulter also said she is prepared to campaign on Clinton's behalf should McCain win the party's nomination.

"John McCain is not only bad for Republicanism, which he definitely is — he is bad for the country," she said."

Will this deter democratic voters from Clinton by framing her as too conservative, or urge conservatives to vote democratic? More importantly, will these effects balance each other out or will it cause a bigger swing one way over the other?

A Funny Thing from a Hillary Clinton Interview on Logo

I was watching stand up comedy on Logo (the GLBT cable network) and during a commercial break a Logo corespondent did a brief, brief interview with Hilary Clinton via satellite. It was right after Super Tuesday. Aside from the typical questions about gay interest and her stance on Don't Ask, Don't Tell, he asked one really interesting question and when she answered I just went "LIAR!" in my head. He said that after the debate, he saw her and Obama each whisper something in each other's ears, and he asked what it was they said to one another. Her response was, "oh, just that we're both just so glad that it's over" or something to that effect. Her tone and smile made it seem to infer that the private exchange between them was a mutual sigh of comradery and I was just like, 'yeah, right.' I don't get why politicians feel the need to put a P.R. spin on every little detail, there's nothing wrong with saying "that's private" or making up something more believable like, "we told each other job well done." It made me feel like she was evasive and shady for some reason. I understand that she's trying to shorten the gap between the two candidates to unite the party, but until you're running on the same ticket, try to avoid the "either/or, we're both 100% just as good" mentality. Don't spend weeks berating your opponent only to act like old buddies. Love/Hate is just another way to say Flip/Flop.

The Clintonistas Downplay Their Losses

Clinton's pollster  and strategist, Mark Penn, was partly blamed for her Iowa loss and her calculated actions based on polling data. Now he's dismissing recent polls that favor Obama over Clinton up against McCain. In this situation and others, people leave out important details. For example, this is old news about Obama beating McCain in the polls. In RealClearPolitics' averages, both Obama and Edwards did better against McCain than Clinton, and this happened months ago. 

Penn goes on to say that the polls showed her losing in California and Massachusetts. Actually, Obama only beat her by a small margin in one poll out of the four most recent from Massachusetts. Penn is skewing the truth and trying to portray her as the underdog.

In her latest interview she downplays the significance of the red states Obama won since they're likely to be taken by the Republican nominee. Instead she emphasizes the the importance of big states like California. Isn't it safe to claim that no matter who the Democratic nominee is, he or she will take the liberal states of California, Massachusetts, and New York? I don't get her rationale.

Here's a blog I like that sums the Clintonistas' attitude towards Obama's wins: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/11/121758/950

I thought of the comparison between Obama and Jesse Jackson after Obama's South Carolina win. Bill didn't mention how Edwards won South Carolina in 2004. What he really wanted to say is that Obama won South Carolina because he's black.

john.he.is McCain Redux

The latest evolution of the Yes We Can video campaign.

McCain: "There are going to be other wars. I'm sorry to tell you... We're going to have a lot of combat wounds, and my friends, it's going to be tough... We've got a lot of work to do... If you think things are bad now... you ain't seen nothing yet... I don't think Americans are concerned if we're there a hundred years, a thousand years, ten thousand years."

AND THEN, as if the release of that clip weren't sufficient enough to keep McCain strategists busy for a few days, the challenge of explaining McCain's reinterpretation of a catchy Beach Boys refrain will. He SINGS, on tape--I kid you not--"BOMB, BOMB, BOMB... BOMB, BOMB IRAN."

Enjoy. (Someone with a little more tech savvy, please feel free to reload with embedded video link. For the life of me I can't make it work.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gwqEneBKUs&e

What Do You Think This Endorsement Would Do?

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/02/08/intv.powell.undecided.cnn?iref=videosearch

This is video of Colin Powell talking to Wolf Blitzer a couple of days ago about who he will endorse. Powell hasn't made a decision yet, but it sounds like he'd be willing to endorse a non-Republican in this race...

So, what effect would Powell's endorsement of Obama or Clinton have, if any? What effect in general does having someone like Powell cross party lines to endorse a candidate have on a race?

Don't Hold Your Breathe for Gore Endorsement

In the latest installment of Clinton-Obama: March to the White House, CNN is reporting that sources close to Al Gore say the former Vice President will not be endorsing a candidate in the Democratic primaries. Instead, the sources suggest, Gore will have a "role to play" as the Party's "neutral" elder statesman. This is the second time this week (Dean being the first) that Party officials have hinted that the Democratic leadership--not the American voters--will decide who is annointed the Democratic candidate for POTUS.

Does changing campaign managers make a difference when you’re losing the lead?

Patti Solis, Hillary Clinton’s former Campaign Manager, stepped down from her position this week. Now the ultimate question is, does Mrs. Clinton believe this is what it will take to change the downward slide in primary state victories? Hillary’s recent losses in Washington, Louisiana, and Nebraska, is said to have been the deciding factor of her changing her campaign leadership. Although it is not “winner takes all,” and she is still very much in the race, momentum is what she is trying to change.  

Hillary’s selection of Maggie Williams as her new campaign leader is a very solid decision.  Maggie was with both Patti and Mrs. Clinton for years. The inside workings of the campaign should not suffer due to this change. Her ability to utilize the Internet for contributions is another reason a change was sought. Hillary needed to infuse 5 million dollars of her own money towards the cause when her treasury was short of funds.  This lack of watching the purse may be the largest reason for a change.  

The changing of the leadership may be a good strategic move.  Getting the media to redirect their attention from the momentum of Obama, while she makes her move on the larger upcoming states of Texas, Ohio, and Vermont. If she proves victories in these key upcoming states, this management move will be seen as brilliant. If she does not appear to emerge victories in these key states, it may be a brokered convention, and Hillary may still pull the ultimate victory. What do you think?