Lately, the media is reporting that Obama is increasing his lead. He received Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey endorsement last week. He also received Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar's endorsement this week and supposedly lead all U.S. representatives from North Carolina intend to endorse Obama before the North Carolina primary. He also gained a few more delegates this weekend from the Texas convention. His lead is slowly increasing.
As for Hillary, now she has attractive negative attention again from the media. For the past few days I have read articles about politicians saying she should drop out of the race and reporters claiming that cannot win the nomination through pledged delegates or has a tiny chance of winning it. There's even a Hillary Deathwatch indicating her chances of winning. She really needs some good news.
Monday, March 31, 2008
It has lasted too long!
Last week, American media focused on Barack Obama’s relationship with Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Hillary Clinton’s loss of memory. I would like to come back on both events. As for Obama’s relationship with Rev. Wright, the sermons of the latter do not engaged the former and I think Senator Obama had the elegance to remain faithful to the one who has been his friend for years. As for Senator Clinton, things are a little bit different. Indeed, it appeared clearly that Hillary Clinton lied to people by stating that she put her life in danger in Bosnia while she was the First Lady.
Media focused on Clinton’s lie as it has shocked the morality expected from someone running for the presidential office. They also immediately drew conclusions from this lie, saying that Hillary Clinton may have lied for months on her experience.
As far as I am concerned, I think that this lie underscores a huge problem this primary is facing: it has lasted too long. Indeed, if the media focus on Rev. Wright sermons and on Hillary Clinton’s lie, it demonstrates first and foremost that the candidates are running out of arguments. They no longer know what to say to voters to convince them. In addition, I do think that voters do not expect anything more from the candidates; people know perfectly the arguments and the program that the candidates have been relentlessly repeating for more than a year. Hillary Clinton’s lie has pointed out that voters and the entire US democracy have nothing to win in such a long campaign.
Media focused on Clinton’s lie as it has shocked the morality expected from someone running for the presidential office. They also immediately drew conclusions from this lie, saying that Hillary Clinton may have lied for months on her experience.
As far as I am concerned, I think that this lie underscores a huge problem this primary is facing: it has lasted too long. Indeed, if the media focus on Rev. Wright sermons and on Hillary Clinton’s lie, it demonstrates first and foremost that the candidates are running out of arguments. They no longer know what to say to voters to convince them. In addition, I do think that voters do not expect anything more from the candidates; people know perfectly the arguments and the program that the candidates have been relentlessly repeating for more than a year. Hillary Clinton’s lie has pointed out that voters and the entire US democracy have nothing to win in such a long campaign.
This Is the Race that Never Ends
It goes on and on my friends...I know I'm not the only one that remembers the "Song that Never Ends" right? At first it is a fun jingle but very quickly it turns into a frustrating song with the same words over and over again and you just end up wishing the person/people singing would stop. Well this race is beginning to feel like that. Clinton announced yesterday that she will stay in the race until the Democratic Convention in July. Another 3 or 4 months of the same recycled arguments and discussions on TV and all over the blogs. This Democratic primary has been going on/covered for too long and I just wish it would end. Though I support Obama, frankly there is part of me that just wants whoever the Democratic nominee will be to get the nomination already so we can move on. The campaign coverage has been going on for over a year and I, among others, are getting bored. Can we just choose a nominee and move on to actually getting a Democrat elected to the White House? I know that this view is not what the primary, or even Democracy, should be about but so be it. After all, this is the song that never ends
Enough is enough...
With all the current discourse that is taking place regarding whether or not Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race for the Democratic nomination, I cannot help but notice that the Democrats are acting more and more like their mascot – the proverbial “donkey” (I don’t really feel comfortable using the term I’m thinking of on the blog, but I trust that you can figure out what I mean). It really irks me that, once again, my political party is fighting amongst itself and, in my mind, weakening its chances at unity in the national election.
Over break I had a discussion with my aunt in which she was absolutely certain that no matter what, Senator McCain would secure the presidency. According to her, the fact that Obama and Clinton supporters were so polarized against each other meant that McCain would easily steal Democratic votes from the losing candidate’s campaign. After reading an article released by the Associated Press yesterday, I am now actually coming around to my aunt’s position.
Women have remained steadfast, passionate and strong supporters of
Furthermore, with every new Obama surrogate that comes forward calling for
Race and its (Positive) Effect on the Presidential Race
So even though I haven't really been pleased with the coverage of race in this year's Presidential race (i.e., I'm clearly ignoring part of my identity by voting for either Obama or Clinton, Obama isn't black/white enough, the Dems have unresolved issues with race still, Jeremiah Wright, Geraldine Ferraro, etc.) outside of Obama's speech on race, which I personally thought was so on-point and thought-provoking, I'm posting this interesting article on what it is to be of mixed-race in America.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/31/us/politics/31race.html
Race is such a complex issue in America, even almost 40 years after Dr. King was assassinated. I think is why I was so disgusted with the media trying to make it seem like I as a black woman was conflicted about who I should vote for based on physical characteristics. It's also disheartening to see/hear instances of someone thinking that they've been discriminated against but are automatically dismissed because people think that since there are no Jim Crow signs up anymore or that we're in southern California that racism doesn't exist. At the same time, there are some individuals who allege race discrimination at every corner, which I also think is bad because it does diminish the instances where discrimination does in fact occur.
But this is precisely why we need to have more candid discussions about race in America, and why I hope these discussions don't end on Nov. 5. We ALL make judgments about people based on their ethnicity, skin color, how they wear their hair, etc., but before we can really embrace our differences, we should try to understand why some of our differences are sensitive areas for some.
That's your public service announcement for the day. No more holding of hands and singing Kumbaya from me. I promise ;)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/31/us/politics/31race.html
Race is such a complex issue in America, even almost 40 years after Dr. King was assassinated. I think is why I was so disgusted with the media trying to make it seem like I as a black woman was conflicted about who I should vote for based on physical characteristics. It's also disheartening to see/hear instances of someone thinking that they've been discriminated against but are automatically dismissed because people think that since there are no Jim Crow signs up anymore or that we're in southern California that racism doesn't exist. At the same time, there are some individuals who allege race discrimination at every corner, which I also think is bad because it does diminish the instances where discrimination does in fact occur.
But this is precisely why we need to have more candid discussions about race in America, and why I hope these discussions don't end on Nov. 5. We ALL make judgments about people based on their ethnicity, skin color, how they wear their hair, etc., but before we can really embrace our differences, we should try to understand why some of our differences are sensitive areas for some.
That's your public service announcement for the day. No more holding of hands and singing Kumbaya from me. I promise ;)
Gore's $300 Million Campaign
Al Gore is creating a $300 million campaign to get the issue of global warming as a higher priority in the nation’s political agenda. It will be a 3 year campaign and will include network TV advertising on popular shows, such as “American Idol.” He will fund this campaign with profits from his global warming book and movie, “An Inconvenient Truth” as well as with prize money from his share of the Nobel Peace Prize. One of the main goals of the campaign is to turn the climate crisis into one of the top issues in which voters make decisions. What I found interesting about this article was not that Gore is launching this campaign, but that most of the comments about the article were negative and seemed to disagree with this idea. With all the media attention that this issue has been getting, I have become more aware of global warming and definitely see it as an issue; however, many of the comments left on this article suggested that Gore is making global warming a bigger issue than it really is. One person says, “10 years from now everyone will deny they fell for Al Gore’s nonsense.” Another says, “Global warming is nothing but politics.” Do you guys agree that Al Gore is making climate change and global warming into a bigger issue than it really is…or is it an issue that deserves to be on the top of the list?
Why Stop Now?
The popular debate over the past week or so as to whether or not Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race for the Democratic nomination, which has largely dominated the attention of cable news channels and newspapers, continued on Sunday as various surrogates and journalists appeared on morning talk shows to discuss the prospects of a long, drawn out nomination fight.
Several politicians, the most prominent example being Senator Leahy, have come forward this week and urged Clinton to drop out of the race, assuming that her candidacy is all but doomed and that her desire to continue fighting will only serve to hurt the party in the long run. Adding to this idea today was Governor Richardson, now a public supporter of Obama, as well as New York Times columnist David Brooks. Brooks wrote earlier this week that because Hillary only has a very slim chance at victory, which he now puts at just 5% because of the math that works against her, her continued attempts to attack Senator Obama and question his record, which will be supported by his dropping poll numbers and her continued success in several of the states soon to vote, will result in her hurting his candidacy while in fact not winning herself. He repeated this argument today on NBC's Meet the Press, as he believes that as she grows more confident from victories in upcoming races like Pennsylvania, she will grow more aggressive, yet never move significantly closer to the nomination, as a result of the delegate gap that will continue to exist between herself and Senator Obama. Brooks figures that with Michigan and Florida looking like they will no longer re-vote or break in her favor, and with superdelegates still unlikely to overturn the "will of the people," Clinton is only hurting her own party by remaining in the race.
This however, was not the sole opinion presented this week, and not the sole opinion heard on the air today. Besides Clinton herself, as well as obvious Clinton supporters like her husband, former President Clinton, and close advisor and longtime friend James Carville, who all spoke out publicly this week and denied that there was any legitimate reason why she should quit before every primary was complete, journalist Peter Beinart and the editorial board of the Washington Post also came out today in defense of a continuation of this fight. Beinart, also appearing on Meet the Press, argued that the historical evidence has shown him that draw-out nomination contests do not, in fact, significantly affect that party's results in the general election. His belief is that Obama has become a much better candidate over the past few months and will actually benefit as a result of the fact that certain "scandals" are appearing now, rather than later on, which is a result of the vetting process that Hillary's campaign has initiated. He still regards Obama as clearly the more likely nominee, but he values the fact that serious issues are being discussed between the two candidates and observes that no Democrat will, in the end, regret the process now taking place that is testing both of the potential candidates as to how strong they will be in a general election fight against John McCain.
In an editorial article entitled, "Don't Stop Campaigning," which was published Sunday in the Washington Post, the paper continued this argument, stating that, no matter what you think of either Democratic Presidential candidate, this process is a) energizing the electorate, b) informing voters and battle-testing both candidates, and c) not yet over. On the first point, they point out that there have been record numbers of voters who have registered as Democrats and have voted thus far in these primaries, thereby getting excited about one of the two candidates months before any voter would typically start paying attention, especially in a late-voting state like Pennsylvania. On the second point, despite the attacks on the other candidate's qualifications for the office, the paper suggests that discussions between Clinton and Obama can be cordial and substantive. They point out how the candidates debated issues of the economy and the mortgage crisis in the last week and suggest that even more serious conversations could take place: "The list of issues to hash out is endless, and doing so in polite political combat could produce a stronger Democratic candidate for the fall and a better-informed electorate." Certainly the merits of each candidate's positions can be determined, and each candidate can gain advice as to how to better pitch their messages to the public and how to campaign more effectively, overall. On the last point, the editorial points out that the delegate count remains relatively close and that neither candidate will, in the end, have earned enough elected delegates to win. This point also includes the argument that millions of voters still have not yet had their say, which has been a rallying cry for the Clinton campaign in recent weeks, in addition to the observation that the race may at one point break for one candidate or the other, and it may not be the one that we predict right now, given all the uncertainty thus far in this primary period.
With nothing quite yet clear in the race for the nomination and no signs of immediate doom and gloom for the Democratic Party, as journalist Peter Beinart and the Washington Post might ask, "Why stop now?"
Several politicians, the most prominent example being Senator Leahy, have come forward this week and urged Clinton to drop out of the race, assuming that her candidacy is all but doomed and that her desire to continue fighting will only serve to hurt the party in the long run. Adding to this idea today was Governor Richardson, now a public supporter of Obama, as well as New York Times columnist David Brooks. Brooks wrote earlier this week that because Hillary only has a very slim chance at victory, which he now puts at just 5% because of the math that works against her, her continued attempts to attack Senator Obama and question his record, which will be supported by his dropping poll numbers and her continued success in several of the states soon to vote, will result in her hurting his candidacy while in fact not winning herself. He repeated this argument today on NBC's Meet the Press, as he believes that as she grows more confident from victories in upcoming races like Pennsylvania, she will grow more aggressive, yet never move significantly closer to the nomination, as a result of the delegate gap that will continue to exist between herself and Senator Obama. Brooks figures that with Michigan and Florida looking like they will no longer re-vote or break in her favor, and with superdelegates still unlikely to overturn the "will of the people," Clinton is only hurting her own party by remaining in the race.
This however, was not the sole opinion presented this week, and not the sole opinion heard on the air today. Besides Clinton herself, as well as obvious Clinton supporters like her husband, former President Clinton, and close advisor and longtime friend James Carville, who all spoke out publicly this week and denied that there was any legitimate reason why she should quit before every primary was complete, journalist Peter Beinart and the editorial board of the Washington Post also came out today in defense of a continuation of this fight. Beinart, also appearing on Meet the Press, argued that the historical evidence has shown him that draw-out nomination contests do not, in fact, significantly affect that party's results in the general election. His belief is that Obama has become a much better candidate over the past few months and will actually benefit as a result of the fact that certain "scandals" are appearing now, rather than later on, which is a result of the vetting process that Hillary's campaign has initiated. He still regards Obama as clearly the more likely nominee, but he values the fact that serious issues are being discussed between the two candidates and observes that no Democrat will, in the end, regret the process now taking place that is testing both of the potential candidates as to how strong they will be in a general election fight against John McCain.
In an editorial article entitled, "Don't Stop Campaigning," which was published Sunday in the Washington Post, the paper continued this argument, stating that, no matter what you think of either Democratic Presidential candidate, this process is a) energizing the electorate, b) informing voters and battle-testing both candidates, and c) not yet over. On the first point, they point out that there have been record numbers of voters who have registered as Democrats and have voted thus far in these primaries, thereby getting excited about one of the two candidates months before any voter would typically start paying attention, especially in a late-voting state like Pennsylvania. On the second point, despite the attacks on the other candidate's qualifications for the office, the paper suggests that discussions between Clinton and Obama can be cordial and substantive. They point out how the candidates debated issues of the economy and the mortgage crisis in the last week and suggest that even more serious conversations could take place: "The list of issues to hash out is endless, and doing so in polite political combat could produce a stronger Democratic candidate for the fall and a better-informed electorate." Certainly the merits of each candidate's positions can be determined, and each candidate can gain advice as to how to better pitch their messages to the public and how to campaign more effectively, overall. On the last point, the editorial points out that the delegate count remains relatively close and that neither candidate will, in the end, have earned enough elected delegates to win. This point also includes the argument that millions of voters still have not yet had their say, which has been a rallying cry for the Clinton campaign in recent weeks, in addition to the observation that the race may at one point break for one candidate or the other, and it may not be the one that we predict right now, given all the uncertainty thus far in this primary period.
With nothing quite yet clear in the race for the nomination and no signs of immediate doom and gloom for the Democratic Party, as journalist Peter Beinart and the Washington Post might ask, "Why stop now?"
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Hillary's Achilles Heel
Noted journalist Carl Bernstein called Clinton's recent Bosnia episode a "watershed moment" in her campaign. He argues that Clinton has never had a reputation for being honest and open; having written a biography of the senator, he suggests a pattern in her political career of bending the truth to suit her purposes. This tendency has been evident in the way she has shifted her view of certain features of the campaign to favor her current position; for example, she had accepted the DNC's decision not to count votes in Florida and Michigan until it turned out she desperately needed those votes, at which point she suddenly opposed the DNC's stance vehemently. It's one thing to spin an issue in your favor, but when you do it too much you begin to appear self-serving or disingenuous.
As I consider the vast multitude of events, trips, and meetings that Clinton has attended over the past several years, I find it conceivable that Clinton could have embellished a story and actually begun to believe a wholly different account upon continuous reinforcement. It is plausible that she did not initially intend to deceive. However, once the discrepancy was brought to light, Clinton's subsequent explanations were unsatisfying. Frank Rich of the New York Times pieces together an excellent case for why Clinton's reaction to the debacle is as disturbing as the false story itself. Why did Clinton stubbornly continue to repeat a story that had been publicly proved to be untrue? Why would she later claim she "misspoke" when the story was scripted and consistently unfactual over multiple tellings?
The Bosnia story has highlighted Clinton's deficit in the trust department. As Obama grapples with the fallout from Rev. Wright's comments, Clinton could have used his ordeal as an opportunity to close the favorability gap. Instead, she also finds herself dealing with a damaging story--but she has to defend her own character and not just that of a supporter.
As I consider the vast multitude of events, trips, and meetings that Clinton has attended over the past several years, I find it conceivable that Clinton could have embellished a story and actually begun to believe a wholly different account upon continuous reinforcement. It is plausible that she did not initially intend to deceive. However, once the discrepancy was brought to light, Clinton's subsequent explanations were unsatisfying. Frank Rich of the New York Times pieces together an excellent case for why Clinton's reaction to the debacle is as disturbing as the false story itself. Why did Clinton stubbornly continue to repeat a story that had been publicly proved to be untrue? Why would she later claim she "misspoke" when the story was scripted and consistently unfactual over multiple tellings?
The whole incident paints Clinton as calculating and prone to obfuscating the truth. These unflattering traits will hamper her ability to chip away at voters' negative perceptions of her and will stall her quest for a miraculous comeback. I think hesitation among voters to trust Clinton has been a fatal weakness of her candidacy, and this embarrassing fiasco suggests those fears are not totally unjustified.
How much should a candidate's personal life, both past and present, matter when making your vote?
This question isn't taken from a recent article, and I don't think it's been a prominent topic in this election yet, but with the recent scandal involving former governor Eliot Spitzer, and the scandals of President Clinton and other politicians, I wanted to ask this question.
This weekend, I attended a conference in Newport Beach (not politically based). During discussions over lunch, many of my peers began a completely unrelated discussion about politics. The table was made up of predominately New York residents and the topic of conversation quickly turned to former Governor Eliot Spitzer and the recent controversy. Several people at the table said that they didn't care about his personal life, only his ability to be a good governor for the state of New York. Obviously these people recognized that prostitution is illegal and it is morally wrong to commit adultery, but they said that we put too much of an emphasis on what people either did in their past or are doing in private.
My opinion varies depending on the situation. In the case of Governor Spitzer, he was committing a crime, and therefore I think it does affect his ability to be a good leader. The Governor is expected to uphold the law and yet he was breaking the law.
At the same time, I think that President Clinton's controversy should not have become such an issue of public debate. Clinton should not have lied under oath, but he was a great president. He was one of the most popular presidents of our time, and a successful one at that. I don't agree with his decision to commit adultery, but I don't think that is any of our business.
It only becomes our business when it directly effects or alters that person's ability to perform his\her duties in office.
Even if you believe that anything a president does in office is fair game, what are your thoughts on a candidate's past?
For example, Senator Obama admitted to cocaine use as a youngster, and many were critical of this admission. I personally think that the negative experiences we have in our past can positively benefit our characters in the future.
We can't expect our candidates to have the cleanest of records. Everyone has a skeleton in their closets. I think it's better for a candidate to disclose these indiscretions rather than have them come out later. I don't judge Senator Obama for his past, and I don't judge Clinton as a president based on his adultery.
I know I rambled on, but I really want to know what everyone thinks about the importance of a president's past, and whether their private life should play a role or not in their ability to get voted into office. Do you judge a candidate based on his/her private life?
This weekend, I attended a conference in Newport Beach (not politically based). During discussions over lunch, many of my peers began a completely unrelated discussion about politics. The table was made up of predominately New York residents and the topic of conversation quickly turned to former Governor Eliot Spitzer and the recent controversy. Several people at the table said that they didn't care about his personal life, only his ability to be a good governor for the state of New York. Obviously these people recognized that prostitution is illegal and it is morally wrong to commit adultery, but they said that we put too much of an emphasis on what people either did in their past or are doing in private.
My opinion varies depending on the situation. In the case of Governor Spitzer, he was committing a crime, and therefore I think it does affect his ability to be a good leader. The Governor is expected to uphold the law and yet he was breaking the law.
At the same time, I think that President Clinton's controversy should not have become such an issue of public debate. Clinton should not have lied under oath, but he was a great president. He was one of the most popular presidents of our time, and a successful one at that. I don't agree with his decision to commit adultery, but I don't think that is any of our business.
It only becomes our business when it directly effects or alters that person's ability to perform his\her duties in office.
Even if you believe that anything a president does in office is fair game, what are your thoughts on a candidate's past?
For example, Senator Obama admitted to cocaine use as a youngster, and many were critical of this admission. I personally think that the negative experiences we have in our past can positively benefit our characters in the future.
We can't expect our candidates to have the cleanest of records. Everyone has a skeleton in their closets. I think it's better for a candidate to disclose these indiscretions rather than have them come out later. I don't judge Senator Obama for his past, and I don't judge Clinton as a president based on his adultery.
I know I rambled on, but I really want to know what everyone thinks about the importance of a president's past, and whether their private life should play a role or not in their ability to get voted into office. Do you judge a candidate based on his/her private life?
Obama on the View
After going through this class and becoming more aware of campaign strategies, I thought it was interesting how Obama was featured on "The View" last week. After learning about political ads and how candidates now use public television to increase their appearance on tv without having to spend a lot of money buying ad time.
Obama appeared on "The View" last Friday, where they discussed the comments made by Rev. Wright. Obama rightfully defended him by saying that the comments were a little extreme, but also discussed some of the other more positive comments made in the past by the Reverend. When questioned whether this would show poor judgement on his part, he replied "I didn't have a research team during the course of 20 years to go pull every sermon he's given and see if there's something offensive that he's said." In essence, Obama defended Rev. Wright, but did agree that his words were "rightly offensive".
After discussing this topic in class on Tuesday, I found it interesting that even though it seems that this incident occurred a while ago, and Obama has already directly addressed the issues and dealt with them accordingly, that he still needs to appear on national television to address this issue. Also I am curious as to how much this incident is going to affect his campaign?
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/Politics/Story?id=4536957&page=1
Obama appeared on "The View" last Friday, where they discussed the comments made by Rev. Wright. Obama rightfully defended him by saying that the comments were a little extreme, but also discussed some of the other more positive comments made in the past by the Reverend. When questioned whether this would show poor judgement on his part, he replied "I didn't have a research team during the course of 20 years to go pull every sermon he's given and see if there's something offensive that he's said." In essence, Obama defended Rev. Wright, but did agree that his words were "rightly offensive".
After discussing this topic in class on Tuesday, I found it interesting that even though it seems that this incident occurred a while ago, and Obama has already directly addressed the issues and dealt with them accordingly, that he still needs to appear on national television to address this issue. Also I am curious as to how much this incident is going to affect his campaign?
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/Politics/Story?id=4536957&page=1
Friday, March 28, 2008
Grammar School Irony
So someone took the time to post an article on the NY Times blog about how Senator Bob Casey misspelled the city Pittsburgh in a release about the PA Obama tour. Apparently, he forgot about the h.
I just wanted to add this to a growing list of articles we are finding about less newsworthy topics in recent news.
But what's funny is how people are reacting (okay, just one in particular). Everyone seems to agree with us..."Slow news day, huh?" But the reason I bothered to post this is because of this ironically hilarious post by Lisa:
"Senator Obama and his wife had troubling pronouncing Nevada. He had trouble pronouncing Massachusetts. So what else is knew."
Pittsburgh-Pittsburg. New-knew. All the same, right?
Maybe she should take a look at herself before she casts any stones. Or maybe she did that on purpose - because that is too funny.
I just wanted to add this to a growing list of articles we are finding about less newsworthy topics in recent news.
But what's funny is how people are reacting (okay, just one in particular). Everyone seems to agree with us..."Slow news day, huh?" But the reason I bothered to post this is because of this ironically hilarious post by Lisa:
"Senator Obama and his wife had troubling pronouncing Nevada. He had trouble pronouncing Massachusetts. So what else is knew."
Pittsburgh-Pittsburg. New-knew. All the same, right?
Maybe she should take a look at herself before she casts any stones. Or maybe she did that on purpose - because that is too funny.
The Media Mirage
It is really interesting that the media is focusing on the democratic primary as if they are unsure who the winner will be. Apparently, according to a depressing Politico article, “Hillary Rodham Clinton has no chance of winning” and the media is just taking us along for a ride. As a Hillary supporter, I was very hurt by this statement (he didn’t need to say it like THAT – RIGHT there in the beginning) but painful as it is to say, the author’s insights seem to be solid.
Even Clinton’s campaign acknowledges that she has a slim chance of victory; less than 10 percent, according to one important Clinton adviser. So why take us along for the ride? Why fill us with hope? And moreover, if the extended races are causing so much damage to the party in preparation for November, why won’t the media focus more on unofficially declaring a winner and create news from that? That way, the Democrats can begin to accept the loss and recover.
The authors attribute this “game of make believe” to a few factors. Firstly, the media strays away from predictive reporting in fear of embarrassment. However, the numbers make it pretty clear, and it is quite possible to make a well-grounded prediction based in real numbers (delegates and superdelegate count) at this point. Secondly, the media loves a good story, and the suspense is good for business. But can’t they make good business by supporting something more truthful? Can’t they still write while acknowledging the true facts? Lastly, the Clinton campaign has done an excellent job in overestimating her chances while focusing on his Rev. Wright drama and questioning Obama’s electability. This contributes to the perception that the race is less predictable than it actually is.
I can accept that Clinton is not likely to win – not kind of “not likely,” VERY “not likely.” And that news changes my perspective a lot. Am I the only one who just didn’t put it together? Should I not be surprised? Nevertheless, I don’t appreciate that the media is failing to acknowledge this “little” fact. It isn’t fair for the media to frame the status of this race in a misleading way. This is not entertainment – I can read a novel of go to a movie for that. This is real life.
Even Clinton’s campaign acknowledges that she has a slim chance of victory; less than 10 percent, according to one important Clinton adviser. So why take us along for the ride? Why fill us with hope? And moreover, if the extended races are causing so much damage to the party in preparation for November, why won’t the media focus more on unofficially declaring a winner and create news from that? That way, the Democrats can begin to accept the loss and recover.
The authors attribute this “game of make believe” to a few factors. Firstly, the media strays away from predictive reporting in fear of embarrassment. However, the numbers make it pretty clear, and it is quite possible to make a well-grounded prediction based in real numbers (delegates and superdelegate count) at this point. Secondly, the media loves a good story, and the suspense is good for business. But can’t they make good business by supporting something more truthful? Can’t they still write while acknowledging the true facts? Lastly, the Clinton campaign has done an excellent job in overestimating her chances while focusing on his Rev. Wright drama and questioning Obama’s electability. This contributes to the perception that the race is less predictable than it actually is.
I can accept that Clinton is not likely to win – not kind of “not likely,” VERY “not likely.” And that news changes my perspective a lot. Am I the only one who just didn’t put it together? Should I not be surprised? Nevertheless, I don’t appreciate that the media is failing to acknowledge this “little” fact. It isn’t fair for the media to frame the status of this race in a misleading way. This is not entertainment – I can read a novel of go to a movie for that. This is real life.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Candidates' Kids
It's funny that we discussed the role of Chelsea Clinton the other day in class because today a story called "Meghan McCain Has Offbeat Campaign Blog" was released on ABC News featuring the role of Meghan McCain, Senator McCain's daughter. It discussed her internet diary, http://www.mccainblogette.com/. The article talks about how the 23 year old allows for a different look at her father. The Web site is a "not about issues and rarely mentions other candidates. Rather, it is intended to make her parents, and politics, seem more real." She also addresses her father's age of 71 years saying, "I have yet to see Dad take a nap on the trail." The blog entering the news seems to serve to reach out to the young voter, going even further than the way Chelsea has campaigned for her mom. It offers the ability to reach its' readers at any time. Tis Meghan took advantage of when the story broke about Senator McCain in the New York Times about a possible affair. It will be interesting to see if and how this bog affects her father's run for the presidency.
The ABC News article was written by Libby Quaid.
The ABC News article was written by Libby Quaid.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Race
I am finally content that Barack Obama finally brought the issue of race to the forefront. Although he is African American he never focused on his race during this primary season. Yet this speech that focuses on race was necessary and completely insightful into his opinions and ideals as a presidential candidate. Although we have spoken a lot about this speech, I feel like this speech will be greatly spoken about and many professors will use it to discuss wit their students. The speech definitely served as a momentum and is the best speech that has been given by any presidential candidate in this primary season.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
If Living in LA Isn't Enough Hollywood For You....
...apparently Barack Obama is a distant cousin of Brad Pitt, and Hillary Clinton is a distant cousin of Angelina Jolie, Alanis Morrissette and Celine Dion. Obama is also apparently related to President Bush!
Now, who said the Dems are anything less than one big, happy family?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-candidates-genealogy,1,7910826.story
::rolls eyes and exits stage left::
Now, who said the Dems are anything less than one big, happy family?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-candidates-genealogy,1,7910826.story
::rolls eyes and exits stage left::
Vivid Experience
One of the biggest headlines currently surrounding the election is CBS’s recent exposure of
Another additional article on the issue.
http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/clinton-camp-in-lockdown-mode-over-bosnia-flap-2008-03-25.html
Monday, March 24, 2008
Follow-up…
I would like to follow up with the previous note I posted on the blog. In that post, I commented the decision made by the Michigan Democratic Party to revote next June. The last decision made on Monday 17th by the Florida Democratic Party is surprising. Indeed, Florida voters will not revote to designate the Democratic delegates. The decision made is as surprising as the reason given; as cited in the New York Times, the Florida Democratic Party chairwoman said that after a survey, “thousands of people responded […] “we spent the weekend reviewing your messages, and while your reasons vary widely, the consensus is clear: Florida doesn’t want to vote again. So we won’t.” It is kind of strange to read that one person is speaking out for an entire state. Also, it is kind of dubious to read that voters would not see their vote taken into account.
Once again, I think that the political context, and in particular the political context within the Democratic Party, help explain this decision. Things have changed since the last primary vote in Florida. Senator Clinton had the momentum at that time, then she lost it and now she seems to have it again. Reorganizing a vote in such conditions would probably put voters in a different mindset and give a truncated result. This decision has pointed out that a lot has gone on within the Democratic campaign and that the campaign has lasted too long.
Once again, I think that the political context, and in particular the political context within the Democratic Party, help explain this decision. Things have changed since the last primary vote in Florida. Senator Clinton had the momentum at that time, then she lost it and now she seems to have it again. Reorganizing a vote in such conditions would probably put voters in a different mindset and give a truncated result. This decision has pointed out that a lot has gone on within the Democratic campaign and that the campaign has lasted too long.
Turnout Tsunami
An article on Politico.com discusses how this election cycle has had the largest voter turnout in history. It is no surprise that this is the case when we have historically different types of candidates. However, the article points out that the voter interest has also been unusually high on the Republican side as well. On Super Tuesday, there were records broken in 15 states; 12 states were record breaking on the democratic side while there were 11 states that set Republican turnout records. Officials expect the voter turnout on Election Day to be as much as 80%, which would surpass the 61% voter turnout in 2004. Even the 2004 figure had been the highest since 1968. Election administrators are warning of the possibility of a “turnout tsunami,” which somewhat alarms them while at the same time “thrills them.” They are fearful that it may be overwhelming and hard to handle. There are concerns over long lines as well as concerns over the reliability of the electronic voting systems. I think it is great that voter turnout has been so high this election; however, with more people getting out to the polls this might also create big inconveniences. I have always been able to get right in and vote without waiting in lines so it should be interesting to see how things change with the “turnout tsunami.”
Obama Vacation: Fair Game For Press?
The article, "Obama Vacation: Fair Game for Press" was published on Politico.com today. Written by Michael Calderone, the article discusses a vacation Senator Obama took this past weekend. The article questions whether or not the candidates vacation was fair game or not.
My reason for this post isn't to discuss the content of the article but to discuss the apparent boredom of the press at this point in time. Obviously there is a problem when there is this much time between primaries. We have nothing better to report about then whether or not Obama's vacation was fair game for the press? This is ridiculous in my opinion and a waste of our time.
Senator Obama wants to be president and with that comes the added exposure and a limited private life. I don't feel bad for him but I also think it isn't any of our business where a candidate takes his vacation with his family. The point here is, that the media is desperate to fill space and we are subjected to their "political reporting".
I understand that this is a slow juncture in the political race. We already know that Senator John McCain is the candidate for the Republican Party, and we are just playing the waiting game to see who wins the Democratic nomination. This does not mean that the press should be creating news where there is none.
Obama took a short vacation during a national holiday. Big Deal. There is an abundance of important "newsworthy" stories. I look forward to a month from now, when we actually have something to talk about. I hope we don't progress to Obama's favorite type of cheese or Clinton's favorite book.
Based on the article: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9198_Page2.html
My reason for this post isn't to discuss the content of the article but to discuss the apparent boredom of the press at this point in time. Obviously there is a problem when there is this much time between primaries. We have nothing better to report about then whether or not Obama's vacation was fair game for the press? This is ridiculous in my opinion and a waste of our time.
Senator Obama wants to be president and with that comes the added exposure and a limited private life. I don't feel bad for him but I also think it isn't any of our business where a candidate takes his vacation with his family. The point here is, that the media is desperate to fill space and we are subjected to their "political reporting".
I understand that this is a slow juncture in the political race. We already know that Senator John McCain is the candidate for the Republican Party, and we are just playing the waiting game to see who wins the Democratic nomination. This does not mean that the press should be creating news where there is none.
Obama took a short vacation during a national holiday. Big Deal. There is an abundance of important "newsworthy" stories. I look forward to a month from now, when we actually have something to talk about. I hope we don't progress to Obama's favorite type of cheese or Clinton's favorite book.
Based on the article: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9198_Page2.html
NYT Article on Two McCain Moments
The article mentions that in 2001 McCain was contemplating switching parties and in 2004 he met with Senator Kerry about running on the same Democratic presidential ticket. The Democrats claim that they were approached in both instances by the McCain camp, while his advisers assert the opposite.
I hadn't heard any of this information before. The Republican primary candidates should have used to this information to tarnish his conservative credentials. I wonder whether the Dems will use this during the general election. They don't seem to be addressing his candidacy at the moment. The media isn't focused much on McCain. The only negatives I remember throughout his campaign are just the gaffes. Even last week's "Iran Al-Qaeda" gaffe isn't getting much airplay as it would have had it been done by Obama or Clinton.
Two McCain Moments, Rarely Mentioned
I hadn't heard any of this information before. The Republican primary candidates should have used to this information to tarnish his conservative credentials. I wonder whether the Dems will use this during the general election. They don't seem to be addressing his candidacy at the moment. The media isn't focused much on McCain. The only negatives I remember throughout his campaign are just the gaffes. Even last week's "Iran Al-Qaeda" gaffe isn't getting much airplay as it would have had it been done by Obama or Clinton.
Two McCain Moments, Rarely Mentioned
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Economic Forecast
An article posted today on Bloomberg discusses a model developed by Yale University professor Ray Fair that allows him to predict the outcome of Presidential elections based on several factors, including inflation, economic growth, how long the incumbent party has held office, and the unemployment rate. Since 1916 Fair's model would have been wrong in only three instances, and none of these mistakes were by very wide margins.
Fair, like other analysts, believes that the economy will be the driving force for this election, as a recession nears, personal life savings decline, gas prices rise over $4 a gallon, and the number of home foreclosures increases. Fair's model says the Democrats are in a favorable position, even if the economy does improve marginally, as he sees them getting 52 percent of the vote in November. That is because of the fact that any improvement to the economy between now and November will likely be minor, and anything done to improve the economy now will likely not have a major impact for quite some time to come. Analysts see the hard economic times continuing, with wages down and an increasing numbers of job cuts on the horizon, and Fair believes that voters will be walking into the voting booth with the economy firmly on their minds.
What hurts John McCain the most in this situation is that he is a member of the party currently in power, which is the one that is being blamed by many in the public for leading us into the dark economic times we are now in. Stuart Rothenberg agrees and is quoted in this article as saying, "the president's party usually gets a disproportionate amount of the blame." Also, McCain has explained his interest in continuing much of Bush's economic policy, including making his tax cuts permanent. His main new ideas include reducing the corporate rate and eliminating congressional earmarks, which do not appear to be wildly popular ideas to the public and will not seem like major changes to the system. Also hurting McCain, in the present, and surely down the road in this campaign, is his sound bite from December, when he stated, "[The economy issue] is not something I've understood as well as I should." It would clearly not be a surprise to see this quote reappear in several Democratic campaign ads heading into November.
The Democrats are trying to portray McCain as a member of "the party of old" and unable to turn the economy around with the same old methods that President Bush has tried. According to the article, that is why the "change" message seems to be working so well, especially for Obama-- because it's becoming evident that what's in place now isn't working. Obama and Clinton, therefore, have an advantage as long as the economy remains a significant issue to voters, which Ray Fair and others quoted in this article believe it will. Clinton has taken the issue to Bush, and Republicans in general, by accusing him of "fiscal irresponsibility" and stating that, on oil prices, "there is no sense of urgency or presidential leadership." Clearly Clinton and Obama want to pin the blame of the current economic woes on the Republicans, despite their own recent run in power in Congress.
However, neither Clinton nor Obama has yet to offer a broad plan to pull the nation out of the current economic recession, but such a move would make sense in the near future. They have already offered proposals on taxes and the mortgage market, as Obama has pushed for a $1,000 tax cut for lower-income people, while Clinton, has called for a moratorium on home foreclosures. Moving forward, it is seen that the Democrats will have an advantage in this election due to the prominent role that the economy will play in the minds of voters, but Obama and Clinton must capitalize on this advantage by coming out strong with new ideas and an overall plan that will highlight their ability to lead the country out of our current dark economic times. It appears to be their advantage to utilize or squander.
Fair, like other analysts, believes that the economy will be the driving force for this election, as a recession nears, personal life savings decline, gas prices rise over $4 a gallon, and the number of home foreclosures increases. Fair's model says the Democrats are in a favorable position, even if the economy does improve marginally, as he sees them getting 52 percent of the vote in November. That is because of the fact that any improvement to the economy between now and November will likely be minor, and anything done to improve the economy now will likely not have a major impact for quite some time to come. Analysts see the hard economic times continuing, with wages down and an increasing numbers of job cuts on the horizon, and Fair believes that voters will be walking into the voting booth with the economy firmly on their minds.
What hurts John McCain the most in this situation is that he is a member of the party currently in power, which is the one that is being blamed by many in the public for leading us into the dark economic times we are now in. Stuart Rothenberg agrees and is quoted in this article as saying, "the president's party usually gets a disproportionate amount of the blame." Also, McCain has explained his interest in continuing much of Bush's economic policy, including making his tax cuts permanent. His main new ideas include reducing the corporate rate and eliminating congressional earmarks, which do not appear to be wildly popular ideas to the public and will not seem like major changes to the system. Also hurting McCain, in the present, and surely down the road in this campaign, is his sound bite from December, when he stated, "[The economy issue] is not something I've understood as well as I should." It would clearly not be a surprise to see this quote reappear in several Democratic campaign ads heading into November.
The Democrats are trying to portray McCain as a member of "the party of old" and unable to turn the economy around with the same old methods that President Bush has tried. According to the article, that is why the "change" message seems to be working so well, especially for Obama-- because it's becoming evident that what's in place now isn't working. Obama and Clinton, therefore, have an advantage as long as the economy remains a significant issue to voters, which Ray Fair and others quoted in this article believe it will. Clinton has taken the issue to Bush, and Republicans in general, by accusing him of "fiscal irresponsibility" and stating that, on oil prices, "there is no sense of urgency or presidential leadership." Clearly Clinton and Obama want to pin the blame of the current economic woes on the Republicans, despite their own recent run in power in Congress.
However, neither Clinton nor Obama has yet to offer a broad plan to pull the nation out of the current economic recession, but such a move would make sense in the near future. They have already offered proposals on taxes and the mortgage market, as Obama has pushed for a $1,000 tax cut for lower-income people, while Clinton, has called for a moratorium on home foreclosures. Moving forward, it is seen that the Democrats will have an advantage in this election due to the prominent role that the economy will play in the minds of voters, but Obama and Clinton must capitalize on this advantage by coming out strong with new ideas and an overall plan that will highlight their ability to lead the country out of our current dark economic times. It appears to be their advantage to utilize or squander.
Richardson Picks Obama
This past Friday, Governor Bill Richardson endorsed Senator Barack Obama in his bid for the presidency. Nonetheless, he still claims to be loyal to the family that helped him in his political career, evident in the fact that he had called Senator Hillary Clinton the night before to let her know of his decision not to back her. Richardson’s reasons for choosing Obama are that he feels that her campaign is too negative with too may sharp attacks. He also feel that Obama represents “change” and that important for a “new generation of leadership." Richardson came under attack from James Carville, a Clinton adviser, but responded by saying:
"Well, I'm not going to get in the gutter like that…And you know, that's typical of many of the people around Sen. Clinton. They think they have a sense of entitlement to the presidency."
There is but a month to go until the Pennsylvania primary, which in campaign times is a significant amount of time. According to pollster.com, Clinton is still ahead, but Obama has started to lessen the percentage. Thus, this endorsement gives Obama plenty of time to use it to his advantage, possibly even convincing others like Edwards to endorse him, as well.
CNN.COM
"Well, I'm not going to get in the gutter like that…And you know, that's typical of many of the people around Sen. Clinton. They think they have a sense of entitlement to the presidency."
There is but a month to go until the Pennsylvania primary, which in campaign times is a significant amount of time. According to pollster.com, Clinton is still ahead, but Obama has started to lessen the percentage. Thus, this endorsement gives Obama plenty of time to use it to his advantage, possibly even convincing others like Edwards to endorse him, as well.
CNN.COM
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Straight Talk Express now serving Europe
John McCain is finding that certain luxuries come along with securing your party's nomination early on; one of them is that McCain can afford to spend time traveling abroad while the Democrats continue to battle each other stateside. As explained in a Time magazine article about McCain's recent visit to Britain, his trips have allowed him to "burnish his foreign affairs credentials." (This aim was thwarted when McCain committed a gaffe by mixing up extremist factions in Iraq, an error of as-yet-uncertain impact.) Technically, the trip was made in McCain's capacity as a senator, but photos with heads of state certainly don't hurt his standing as a candidate.
Both Clinton and Obama often tout their ability to repair America's reputation abroad after eight years of foreign policy blunders by the Bush administration. As a Republican, McCain shares many positions with Bush; most notably, he has been a chief advocate of the unpopular war in Iraq. Because of these factors, McCain has generally not been viewed as a particularly potent antidote for improving America's image internationally. The article linked above characterizes the British public as enthralled by the Democratic candidates in the race and largely disinterested in the Republican side.
However, certain groups abroad might be receptive to a President McCain. His reputation for being moderate and straightforward has earned him respect while his military background grants him credibility in matters of war. A recent editorial in the Times of London credits McCain with offering a solid assessment of the situation in Iraq and urges Prime Minister Gordon Brown to heed his advice. (True, the Times is owned by Rupert Murdoch, a well-known conservative, but his editorial control is supposedly minimal.) The Times has a significant voice in London, the capital city of one of our most critical allies, so it's worth noting that this editorial quite forcefully backs McCain on Iraq. The Republican nominee also held a high-profile fundraiser in London.
Both Clinton and Obama often tout their ability to repair America's reputation abroad after eight years of foreign policy blunders by the Bush administration. As a Republican, McCain shares many positions with Bush; most notably, he has been a chief advocate of the unpopular war in Iraq. Because of these factors, McCain has generally not been viewed as a particularly potent antidote for improving America's image internationally. The article linked above characterizes the British public as enthralled by the Democratic candidates in the race and largely disinterested in the Republican side.
However, certain groups abroad might be receptive to a President McCain. His reputation for being moderate and straightforward has earned him respect while his military background grants him credibility in matters of war. A recent editorial in the Times of London credits McCain with offering a solid assessment of the situation in Iraq and urges Prime Minister Gordon Brown to heed his advice. (True, the Times is owned by Rupert Murdoch, a well-known conservative, but his editorial control is supposedly minimal.) The Times has a significant voice in London, the capital city of one of our most critical allies, so it's worth noting that this editorial quite forcefully backs McCain on Iraq. The Republican nominee also held a high-profile fundraiser in London.
These articles have me speculating about how McCain would be perceived abroad as Commander in Chief. As a successor to Bush, he would present nowhere near as stark a contrast as either of the Democrats, but his administration would surely be different in major ways. A New York Times article outlines ways that McCain tried to highlight those differences during his travels. What would a McCain presidency mean to our foreign friends...and to less friendly foreigners?
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Spring break...but no break from the campaign
Sen. Obama delivered a significant speech today in Philadelphia. It was designed to help answer the controversy surrounding his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Most commentators have described this speech as crucial to the larger direction of the campaign. Take a look and leave some feedback. How do you think the speech functioned to address this controversy?
Monday, March 17, 2008
Paterson Admits to Affair
The new governor of New York, David Paterson, has admitted to having an affair from 1999 to 2001. His wife has also admitted to having an affair. He admits that they went through a “rough patch” but since then have gone to counseling and “repaired their marriage.” Is he respected more for being honest about his affair? Does it also make it better for him that his wife also had an affair, demonstrating that it was not all him? Is it only the ones who try to keep it a secret who receive all of the negative press? I respect both him and his wife for coming out and admitting the truth about their marriage; however, I also wonder what other choice they had. There were already rumors spreading about Paterson’s personal life so there best bet was to just come clean about their past. It seems that politicians having affairs is becoming quite the common trend…or I guess it always has been.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
A glance backwards
I got interested in the news ran by CNN; Michigan and Florida are about to vote again in the framework of the Democratic nomination. The article recalls that “the Democratic National Committee did not recognize the results of the January 15 Michigan primary. The DNC had ruled that only four states could hold their contests before February 5, but Michigan wasn't one of those.” As far as I am concerned, I think there are a couple of interesting remarks to make. First, on the one hand, it is sort of surprising that Michigan voted while this vote was obviously in contradiction with the DNC’s rules. On the other hand, it is for me always disrespectful not to take into account the results of a vote. Second, nobody really cared about the DNC’s decision until Hillary Clinton raised the issue. It is because the outcome of the Democratic race is uncertain that people are rethinking of Michigan voters and their voice.
The idea to ask Michigan voters to revote is Hillary Clinton’s. Indeed, she won the Michigan primary with 55 percent of the vote. I got struck by Senator Clinton’s strategy; her strategy is based on the basic assumption that since Michigan voters voted for her two months ago, they will for her next June. I think that she could suffer from her logics. First, the CNN article recalls that last January, “some 40 percent of Democrats in the state filed ballots declaring themselves ‘uncommitted’.” It is far enough to give her opponent, Barack Obama, additional delegates. Second, she seems to forget that in this campaign, things change every week. The situation now is not the same as it was in January and it is not the same as it will be in June. For instance, in January, Sen. Clinton was the frontrunner. Yet, Barack Obama has had the momentum for weeks, becoming the leader of the race. She can change that and she has to if she wants to win. If Hillary Clinton wants to win, she should not look backwards.
The idea to ask Michigan voters to revote is Hillary Clinton’s. Indeed, she won the Michigan primary with 55 percent of the vote. I got struck by Senator Clinton’s strategy; her strategy is based on the basic assumption that since Michigan voters voted for her two months ago, they will for her next June. I think that she could suffer from her logics. First, the CNN article recalls that last January, “some 40 percent of Democrats in the state filed ballots declaring themselves ‘uncommitted’.” It is far enough to give her opponent, Barack Obama, additional delegates. Second, she seems to forget that in this campaign, things change every week. The situation now is not the same as it was in January and it is not the same as it will be in June. For instance, in January, Sen. Clinton was the frontrunner. Yet, Barack Obama has had the momentum for weeks, becoming the leader of the race. She can change that and she has to if she wants to win. If Hillary Clinton wants to win, she should not look backwards.
Friday, March 14, 2008
McCain's Threat Appeal: Helpful or Hurtful
In a recent town hall meeting in PA, Republican John McCain revealed that he feared terrorists might increase attacks in Iraq in order to tip the election against him in November. While he is known for saying the U.S. could have presence in Iraq for "maybe a hundred years," both Clinton and Obama have promised to withdraw troops. Attacks and casualities abroad could potenitally increase anti-war sentiment as people see that American presence is more detrimental than helpful, thus bringing support to whoever the Democratic nominee will be.
I wonder, though, if such attacks could cause as much damage as people might think. Could it possibly have the opposite effect? Might people feel that more troops need to go and fight "the enemies" to sort things out?
I feel that fear of terrorists and homeland security are what put our current leader in office. The 9/11 attacks were actually were helpful for him because he promised security and protection that his opponent did not. I feel that by capitalizing on our fear and positioning himself as a hater-of-all-evil, he gained a lot of support that he would not have received otherwise.
If there more casualties abroad, will that elicit reactions of withdrawal or fuel support for war? What if they happen on American soil? Would that change people's reactions? Threat appeals have very powerful persuasive impact, but to whose advantage will it swing?
My thoughts were fueled by this NY Times blog post.
I wonder, though, if such attacks could cause as much damage as people might think. Could it possibly have the opposite effect? Might people feel that more troops need to go and fight "the enemies" to sort things out?
I feel that fear of terrorists and homeland security are what put our current leader in office. The 9/11 attacks were actually were helpful for him because he promised security and protection that his opponent did not. I feel that by capitalizing on our fear and positioning himself as a hater-of-all-evil, he gained a lot of support that he would not have received otherwise.
If there more casualties abroad, will that elicit reactions of withdrawal or fuel support for war? What if they happen on American soil? Would that change people's reactions? Threat appeals have very powerful persuasive impact, but to whose advantage will it swing?
My thoughts were fueled by this NY Times blog post.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
More Obama in Hip-Hop... No, He's Actually a Featured Artist This Time
So far, some of the tracks for Q-Tip's upcoming album, The Renaissance (due this spring) are confirmed to boast appearances from the likes of presidential hopeful Barack Obama, blues singer Norah Jones (who has previously duetted with Andre 3000 (the Hey Ya! half of Outkast) on the track "Take Off Your Cool") and director Spike Lee.
Very interesting. Will he be doing some spoken word for us? Singing? Rapping?
I'm surprised this hasn't gotten more (read: any) press. Then again, Q-Tip never does.
Very interesting. Will he be doing some spoken word for us? Singing? Rapping?
I'm surprised this hasn't gotten more (read: any) press. Then again, Q-Tip never does.
Apparently, White People & Educated Black People Like Obama
This post has absolutely nothing to do with polling data.
Instead, it has to do with the widely popular viral blog "Stuff White People Like" and more recent spin-off, "Stuff Educated Black People Like" SWPL's tone has a far more sinister bite, dripping with sarcasm and satire. SEBPL is a self described parody created by a self described educated Black person.
Their only point of intersection so far? Barack Obama is on both lists.
On Stuff White People Like, he's #8. Here's the entry, in its entirity:
Lovely.
Here's the entry from Stuff Educated Black People Like, where he comes in at #12:
Educated Black People Like Barack Obama, but it’s not for the reasons you think.
Instead, it has to do with the widely popular viral blog "Stuff White People Like" and more recent spin-off, "Stuff Educated Black People Like" SWPL's tone has a far more sinister bite, dripping with sarcasm and satire. SEBPL is a self described parody created by a self described educated Black person.
Their only point of intersection so far? Barack Obama is on both lists.
On Stuff White People Like, he's #8. Here's the entry, in its entirity:
Because white people are afraid that if they don’t like him that they will be called racist.
Here's the entry from Stuff Educated Black People Like, where he comes in at #12:
Educated Black People Like Barack Obama, but it’s not for the reasons you think.
Yes, Obama is an Educated Black Person, so of course we LOVE him. However, there are other reasons educated blacks like the Senator from Illinois. Another reason is that he’s the first Black person to run for public office without going all Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson on America. Obama has not once gotten the NAACP or Black Panthers involved in his campaign. We also like him because he has not solicited their help in his campaign for the Presidency; because educated blacks know that these two men would hurt rather than help Obama’s campaign. Al and Jesse are educated black people, so we like them; but educated blacks can only stand these two in moderation. All the yelling and rhyming annoys educated black people.
When discussing politics with an educated black person, do not automatically assume they are a supporter of Senator Obama. This is almost insulting because you are basically saying that because Obama is black and they are black, the two must go together. Allow your educated black friend to discuss the issues that concern them and they will usually tell you that they support Obama because of how he stands on national issues. It is important for an educated black person to explain why they like Obama, so that they can separate themselves from the uneducated or other blacks who like Obama just because he’s black.
It's funny. SWPL supposes white people like him only because they don't want to appear racist, while SEBPL says that educated Black people feel the need to look past race in justifying their reasons for liking him, and also that they don't like uneducated Blacks who only like him because he is Black, even though they like him as a candidate. There are many interesting claims about race here, and there's definitely shreds of truth to some of the claims. For me, It begs the question... is doing/not-doing something to avoid a talk about a candidate's race just as racist as actually confronting it in a relevant context? More importantly, is it racist of these authors to accuse White/"uneducated" Black people of liking Obama only because they are White/he is Black?More Hillary/Obama in Hip Hop
You can call it irrelevant because it's hip hop if you want, but I don't think it's completely not worth mentioning when the political figures get support outside of the typical political forums. Clinton & Obama are again being immortalized in current rap songs... and from the lyrics, it seems like they're already seen as the winner(s).
In the new single from "The-Dream" (writer/producer of J. Holiday's "Bed," Rihanna's "Umbrella," Mary J. Blige's "Just Fine," and Jesse McCartney's "I'm Leavin'") is called "I Luv Your Girl" and features a guest appearance from Atlanta rapper Young Jeezey. His verse begins the song, and the song STARTS with "It goes Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama..." and then he starts doing other shout outs to his friends before saying "and fuck Osama." It was just so weird hearing their names as a jump off point for a song about trying to steal your friend's girlfriend.
And more notably (for me) ... Trina, in the remix to her current single, "Single Again," says that "Like Hillary Clinton, I'm The Boss." It's interesting to see just one of them be mentioned. It's more of an endorsement that way.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Olbermann Tee's Off on Clinton and Ferraro
On MSNBC's Countdown tonight host Keith Olbermann went after Sen. Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro for her comments regarding Obama and Clinton's response. It really speaks for itself but he does point out a real problem with the Clinton campaign and with Senator Clinton in general. He asks why she didn't fire Ferraro "This is how I police my campaign, this is what I stand for." Clinton seems too political, and by not coming out and saying how absolutely wrong the comments were she continues to perpetuate this. She again didn't go out on a limb because she is so worried about something being used against her down the road. Clinton still has a shot at winning this nomination and to get it she needs to take a stand on something, anything say "This is what I believe." She is yet to do that and it might be too little too late at this point...
Our democratic candidates?
Everyone has this notion that since both of the democratic candidates is considered a minority "woman" and the other is an "African American", they are extremely liberal. However, I would disagree with this idea. Both have supported the Bush administration when they were going into war with Iraq, they both support a very long process of becoming a citizen and want to give an enormous fine to illegal immigrants. I have not heard any stance on any political issue that gives me the impression that either encompass what a democratic should actually be! Some may argue that their idea of universal health care is very liberal however that is more similar to communism. Does anyone believe that they encompass the representation of a democrat?
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Define your enemy....
As you recover from the exam, here is an interesting note about how labor unions plan to pre-emptively attack Sen. McCain in the general election. The original story is from the Wall Street Journal and the summary is from Taegan Goddard's Political Wire
"The AFL-CIO, the nation’s largest labor union organization, will announce plans Wednesday for a $53 million effort to elect a Democrat to the White House," according to the Wall Street Journal.
"The AFL-CIO will rely on one of the oldest strategies in the political playbook: Define your opponent before your opponent defines himself. The labor organization will launch its 'McCain Revealed' campaign to paint McCain as anti-worker and to tie him to the economic policies of President Bush."
"The AFL-CIO, the nation’s largest labor union organization, will announce plans Wednesday for a $53 million effort to elect a Democrat to the White House," according to the Wall Street Journal.
"The AFL-CIO will rely on one of the oldest strategies in the political playbook: Define your opponent before your opponent defines himself. The labor organization will launch its 'McCain Revealed' campaign to paint McCain as anti-worker and to tie him to the economic policies of President Bush."
FNC Should Hire Tucker.
I will take the Obama News Network (MSNBC) at its word when they say that Tucker Carlson was severely down graded because the ratings for his show, “Tucker” were “low.” I think we know why his show had low ratings. MSNBC has created a product that caters to the left wing of the Democratic Party. My friends and I love to watch Tucker Carlson. In fact, most of us feel he should start wearing his bowtie again. It is clear that Tucker is likeable and talented. He just is not on the right network. Fox News should hire him. He would be great on that network. I think it is safe to say that he would have high ratings if he were put in the correct time slot. I would suggest putting him after Greta Van Susteren. I think the latter time slot would be good because I feel he appeals to a younger demographic kind of like Greg Gutfeld. Tucker has had a rough go at it between John Stewart and being an outcast at MSNBC. He has been through a lot and now it is time for us to let him come home. The same goes for Pat Buchanan. He should get out of that terrible place that treats him like trash and come home to FNC.
The other election issue
Since September 11, foreign policy has been the overwhelming focus of many political discussions, including the 2008 Presidential election. What is the best way to deal with the
This article contributed:
If Obama Was a White Man.....
....he DEFINITELY wouldn't be where he is right now! Much like how Hillary probably wouldn't be where she is had she not married Bill Clinton...
Geraldine Ferraro has said that Obama would not be in the privileged position he is currently in now if he was anything but a black man...Because everybody knows being a black man in America is one of the most privileged types of people one can be ::rolls eyes::
Here's the article:
http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/geraldine_ferraro_if_obama_was.html
Let's be 100% real...Geraldine Ferraro has totally lost her mind with this comment. Yes, she was the first woman to be a serious presidential candidate when she was chosen to run for VP in '84, but one could, and should, argue that the same argument she's making about Obama could be made about her run as well. Ferraro had less experience in politics than Obama does now, she received the benefit of being the 'stand-out' candidate because she was a woman, and she was no better qualified for her position then than Obama is now. So what exactly is she talking about?
Boy, when things don't go right for the Democrats, the race/gender/class card seems to get played with the absolute quickness. This really smacks of the old saying that Democrats really don't do anything for black people because they know black people will vote for them anyway.
Maybe if I change my affiliation, they'll decide my vote is worth fighting for again.
Geraldine Ferraro has said that Obama would not be in the privileged position he is currently in now if he was anything but a black man...Because everybody knows being a black man in America is one of the most privileged types of people one can be ::rolls eyes::
Here's the article:
http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/geraldine_ferraro_if_obama_was.html
Let's be 100% real...Geraldine Ferraro has totally lost her mind with this comment. Yes, she was the first woman to be a serious presidential candidate when she was chosen to run for VP in '84, but one could, and should, argue that the same argument she's making about Obama could be made about her run as well. Ferraro had less experience in politics than Obama does now, she received the benefit of being the 'stand-out' candidate because she was a woman, and she was no better qualified for her position then than Obama is now. So what exactly is she talking about?
Boy, when things don't go right for the Democrats, the race/gender/class card seems to get played with the absolute quickness. This really smacks of the old saying that Democrats really don't do anything for black people because they know black people will vote for them anyway.
Maybe if I change my affiliation, they'll decide my vote is worth fighting for again.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Hillary Does Not Want to Release Tax Returns
In an article from ABC News, it was suggested that there is a high amount of pressure for Hillary Clinton to release her tax returns, especially since she loaned her campaign $5 million. Clinton has kept most of this information to herself, delaying the release of her tax returns when mostly all of the other candidates have already released theirs. The article explains that during this time where people are struggling in the decision between the two democratic candidates, this information would be helpful. Sheila Krumholz, from the Center for Responsive Politics, says “[Clinton] hasn’t exactly made it clear as to what process is making it so cumbersome to just release them.” Hillary originally stated that she would release her tax returns upon becoming the Democratic nominee, but now says that she plans to release them around April 15. This draws speculation as to whether she has something to hide or if she is just more concerned about other things. Will Hillary’s delaying to provide this disclosure lead some to believe that Hillary Clinton has something to hide about her finances or is this not an important issue. To me it doesn’t seem like a big deal…but is it? What do you think?
NY Times: Eliot Spitzer's Prostitution Ring
The breaking news of the hour is the implication of NY Governor Eliot Spitzer in high end prostitution ring with connections to both New York and Washington. Reporters in across the country are standing by for a news conference by the governor any minute now. Aside from the obvious implications to Spitzer's political career and record as fighting and principled reformist charged with removing corruption from the state government, there are potential implications in the presidential race as well.
While this is all conjecture at this point, there will undoubtedly be questions directed towards Hillary Clinton, (and for that matter NY's senior senator, Charles Schumer), regarding whether she was aware of Spitzer's potential misdeeds. Even though such questions distract from the issues in the presidential campaign, she will certainly have to face them, even if they are unfair. It seems near impossible that Clinton would even have known anything about this, but as the presidential campaign approaches a six-week hiatus, news organizations will be more than happy to report on this state issue in the context of a national campaign. We will have to wait for Spitzer's press conference for more information. Even as someone who has never lived in New York, I am very disappointed that such a promising Democrat, Spitzer, would throw away his political capital in such a juvenile way.
UPDATE (1:15pm): The governor's press conference is over, and although he did not specifically mention it, New York's CBS2 News is now reporting that Spitzer is expected to resign.
While this is all conjecture at this point, there will undoubtedly be questions directed towards Hillary Clinton, (and for that matter NY's senior senator, Charles Schumer), regarding whether she was aware of Spitzer's potential misdeeds. Even though such questions distract from the issues in the presidential campaign, she will certainly have to face them, even if they are unfair. It seems near impossible that Clinton would even have known anything about this, but as the presidential campaign approaches a six-week hiatus, news organizations will be more than happy to report on this state issue in the context of a national campaign. We will have to wait for Spitzer's press conference for more information. Even as someone who has never lived in New York, I am very disappointed that such a promising Democrat, Spitzer, would throw away his political capital in such a juvenile way.
UPDATE (1:15pm): The governor's press conference is over, and although he did not specifically mention it, New York's CBS2 News is now reporting that Spitzer is expected to resign.
Six Long Weeks
On Comedy Central last week (I'm not 100 percent sure which show though I think it was the Daily Show), a comparison was made between Barack Obama and Punxsutawney Phil, the groundhog who is celebrated for his ability to predict the beginning of Spring. After Clinton won three of four contests last week, Obama "saw his shadow and this means six more weeks of primaries." I thought this was funny but It also got me thinking about how long six weeks really is.
According to the article, "Dems Brace for Six-week Brawl", this is the first time since "the advent of the internet, that a competitive presidential campaign has faced such an extended period of time between contested primaries".
For six weeks, we will be speculating about the presidential nominee for the Democratic party.
For six weeks, Senator McCain will have a head start now that he is the Republican nominee for the presidency.
For six weeks, we will have to listen to news outlets such as CNN and Fox News go back and forth, trying to find coverage where there isn't any. How many times can we hear the same arguments for both candidates. I think there is such a thing as over-saturation, even in a political race. I'm a democrat, and although I've heard that this extended primary period could actually benefit our party because it keeps our candidates in the spotlight, I think it also shows a definite flaw in our election process.
I'm not a political expert and I won't begin to dissect the inner-workings of our electoral process, but the issues surrounding Michigan and Florida, as well as terms such as Super Delegate, need to be fixed. I want the right person to be our next president, and I think that it's important not to rush something.
Clinton was left for dead before last week, but she has seen new life and I think she deserves that opportunity. The American people deserve the opportunity to have the candidate of their choice. I don't want us to rush a decision, but I also don't want the primaries to take away from the general election because ultimately, that decides the president. Obama and Clinton can campaign against one another endlessly, but resources could become limited when it' finally time to face Senator John McCain and the Republican Party.
Information provided by: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/8925.html
According to the article, "Dems Brace for Six-week Brawl", this is the first time since "the advent of the internet, that a competitive presidential campaign has faced such an extended period of time between contested primaries".
For six weeks, we will be speculating about the presidential nominee for the Democratic party.
For six weeks, Senator McCain will have a head start now that he is the Republican nominee for the presidency.
For six weeks, we will have to listen to news outlets such as CNN and Fox News go back and forth, trying to find coverage where there isn't any. How many times can we hear the same arguments for both candidates. I think there is such a thing as over-saturation, even in a political race. I'm a democrat, and although I've heard that this extended primary period could actually benefit our party because it keeps our candidates in the spotlight, I think it also shows a definite flaw in our election process.
I'm not a political expert and I won't begin to dissect the inner-workings of our electoral process, but the issues surrounding Michigan and Florida, as well as terms such as Super Delegate, need to be fixed. I want the right person to be our next president, and I think that it's important not to rush something.
Clinton was left for dead before last week, but she has seen new life and I think she deserves that opportunity. The American people deserve the opportunity to have the candidate of their choice. I don't want us to rush a decision, but I also don't want the primaries to take away from the general election because ultimately, that decides the president. Obama and Clinton can campaign against one another endlessly, but resources could become limited when it' finally time to face Senator John McCain and the Republican Party.
Information provided by: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/8925.html
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Star Power, Minor Role
The New York Times article, "Obama in Senate: Star Power, Minor Role," which was published Sunday, examines the accomplishments and activities of the Senator's brief national career. Any article on Obama has to begin by mentioning just how significant his speech was before the Democratic National Convention in the summer of 2004. This was his first real moment to show himself to the country and establish himself as a national figure. John Kerry gave him the opportunity to speak to the country during that evening's primetime TV slot, and he quickly introduced America to his brand of inspirational speech and hope for a better future. He took advantage of this attention to re-release his memoir, which went on to become a best-seller for many weeks to come. He, therefore, arrived at the Senate being as much a "rock star politician" as any freshman Senator could be.
The Times mentions that Obama's celebrity label was not appealing to many other members of Congress, as they appreciated experience and hard work above all else. Senator Obama, it is mentioned, was therefore eager to prove himself during his first year, as he turned down Sunday morning talk show interview requests, tried to join important Senate subcommittees, and focused on the legislation that was presented to him. He appeared eager to learn, which was a sign many Senators did appreciate, as he met with most of his colleagues and sought to be mentored by those like Senator Kennedy, who had a great deal of experience with Washington politics. However, his failure to stand up for his positions on issues of immigration and the war in Iraq angered many fellow Democratic Senators, as they described Obama as being present only "occasionally" during the lengthy Senate debates on immigration and failing to stand by his previously-firm stance that the Iraq war was wrong and should be ended. These are the kinds of "speech over action" examples that the Clinton campaign is now trying to say define his record.
For Obama, his frustration with the limitations of Washington made him eager to change its working environment and, ultimately, inspired him to seek higher office. The article mentions how sluggish everything in the Senate seemed to Senator Obama and how disheartening it was that they did not seem to be producing much significant legislation in his first year in office. The article adds that Obama did not enjoy his place as a young, freshman Senator, as he would only get to ask the last question in hearings and would not be allowed to play a significant role in legislation. Therefore, Obama stayed detached from Washington and its political games, but, partly as a result, his Senate resume is not incredibly impressive. One of his real triumphs came with the issue of ethics reform, which he worked on with Senator Feingold, as he pushed for several lobbyist-restricting changes with conviction and passion. In addition, Hurricane Katrina and the government's poorly planned response was an issue he took on in order to show his commitment to ending poverty, as well as to put himself back in the public spotlight.
Therefore, Senator Obama's Senate career does not show many examples of direct leadership or successful legislation, and his inexperience in Washington and his disheartened attitude toward the state of politics in general may be partially to blame. He is now running for President as a rock star politician, which brings along great attention and fame, but also causes others to question whether he is worth all the hype as a result of his thin resume and record in Congress. Working for him, however, is the fact, as expressed by his supporter, former Senator Tom Daschle, that “for somebody to come in with none of that history is a real advantage.”
It is clear that Senator Obama's celebrity status has catapulted him onto the national stage, but it is his new brand of politics that is attracting so many to his campaign. However, it is also these questions of Obama's inexperience and use of "just words" that is propelling Senator Clinton's recent comeback. Whether, in the end, voters decide that a relatively blank record in Congress is better than a more extensive history (like with Senators Clinton or McCain) is still yet to be determined.
The Times mentions that Obama's celebrity label was not appealing to many other members of Congress, as they appreciated experience and hard work above all else. Senator Obama, it is mentioned, was therefore eager to prove himself during his first year, as he turned down Sunday morning talk show interview requests, tried to join important Senate subcommittees, and focused on the legislation that was presented to him. He appeared eager to learn, which was a sign many Senators did appreciate, as he met with most of his colleagues and sought to be mentored by those like Senator Kennedy, who had a great deal of experience with Washington politics. However, his failure to stand up for his positions on issues of immigration and the war in Iraq angered many fellow Democratic Senators, as they described Obama as being present only "occasionally" during the lengthy Senate debates on immigration and failing to stand by his previously-firm stance that the Iraq war was wrong and should be ended. These are the kinds of "speech over action" examples that the Clinton campaign is now trying to say define his record.
For Obama, his frustration with the limitations of Washington made him eager to change its working environment and, ultimately, inspired him to seek higher office. The article mentions how sluggish everything in the Senate seemed to Senator Obama and how disheartening it was that they did not seem to be producing much significant legislation in his first year in office. The article adds that Obama did not enjoy his place as a young, freshman Senator, as he would only get to ask the last question in hearings and would not be allowed to play a significant role in legislation. Therefore, Obama stayed detached from Washington and its political games, but, partly as a result, his Senate resume is not incredibly impressive. One of his real triumphs came with the issue of ethics reform, which he worked on with Senator Feingold, as he pushed for several lobbyist-restricting changes with conviction and passion. In addition, Hurricane Katrina and the government's poorly planned response was an issue he took on in order to show his commitment to ending poverty, as well as to put himself back in the public spotlight.
Therefore, Senator Obama's Senate career does not show many examples of direct leadership or successful legislation, and his inexperience in Washington and his disheartened attitude toward the state of politics in general may be partially to blame. He is now running for President as a rock star politician, which brings along great attention and fame, but also causes others to question whether he is worth all the hype as a result of his thin resume and record in Congress. Working for him, however, is the fact, as expressed by his supporter, former Senator Tom Daschle, that “for somebody to come in with none of that history is a real advantage.”
It is clear that Senator Obama's celebrity status has catapulted him onto the national stage, but it is his new brand of politics that is attracting so many to his campaign. However, it is also these questions of Obama's inexperience and use of "just words" that is propelling Senator Clinton's recent comeback. Whether, in the end, voters decide that a relatively blank record in Congress is better than a more extensive history (like with Senators Clinton or McCain) is still yet to be determined.
Clinton and Obama as an "unstoppable force"
Bill Clinton said Saturday that a joint ticket pairing Hillary and Obama would be "almost unstoppable." He added that, in his view, Obama would win the "urban areas and the upscale voters" while Clinton claims "the traditional rural areas that we lost when President Reagan was president. If you put those two things together, you'd have an almost unstoppable force." That being said, he makes a great point. Being that the biggest concern with Obama is his lack of “experience,” I think that being vice president will set him up for a definite win during the next election.
However, The Obama team has largely avoided making similar statements. Obama stated, "You won't see me as a vice presidential candidate, you know, I'm running for president." It’s obvious that Obama is not to keen on the idea of being vice-president at the moment. It’s understandable, but I truly think that the Clinton-Obama ticket would be ideal for our country at this moment. Mr. Clinton makes a strong point, and I really hope that we do in fact see this happen. Obama will get his chance the next time around, and will be better than ever after he gains his “experience.” What do you think? Is this the ideal situation or not??
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Hillary Swiftboats
Indeed, Hillary has learned a few things in her many years of Washington experience.
This week Sen. Clinton, seeking free press and apparently a high-profile opportunity to slander her opponent, granted an interview with CBS's 60 Minutes. In the interview Steve Kroft speaks of rumors circulating recently among Ohio voters challenging Sen. Obama patriotism. As the rumors go, Obama does not know the national anthem, "wouldn't use the Holy Bible," and is a Muslim. Kroft gives Ms. Clinton the opportunity to clear the unfounded and blatantly malicious rumors (of unknown, suspicious origin). Kroft asks Ms. Clinton if she believed that Mr. Obama is a Muslim.
Her response? “No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know.”
It's like Swiftboating, Clintonian version. Where is Move On dot Org? Perhaps it's time for some good, old-fashion Democratic Party disciplining?
Check out Bob Herbert's Sunday New York Times Op-Ed to read more.
This week Sen. Clinton, seeking free press and apparently a high-profile opportunity to slander her opponent, granted an interview with CBS's 60 Minutes. In the interview Steve Kroft speaks of rumors circulating recently among Ohio voters challenging Sen. Obama patriotism. As the rumors go, Obama does not know the national anthem, "wouldn't use the Holy Bible," and is a Muslim. Kroft gives Ms. Clinton the opportunity to clear the unfounded and blatantly malicious rumors (of unknown, suspicious origin). Kroft asks Ms. Clinton if she believed that Mr. Obama is a Muslim.
Her response? “No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know.”
It's like Swiftboating, Clintonian version. Where is Move On dot Org? Perhaps it's time for some good, old-fashion Democratic Party disciplining?
Check out Bob Herbert's Sunday New York Times Op-Ed to read more.
When the DNC Attacks...NOT on Fox
A few weeks ago a posted about how frustrated I was about the lack of McCain attacks from the DNC while the RNC was hitting and hitting hard. Finally they have decided to fight back! Yesterday Jonathan Martin posted a DNC video that is being blasted out this weekend. The video ties McCain to Bush in a very tight, succinct and convincing manner. The full video is below. The strength of McCain is his reputation as a "Maverick" and a "Straight-Shooter" and certainly not a Bush Republican. However in the last few years he has sold his soul to the Bush administration in hopes of securing the nomination, he has now done just that. Except Bush approval ratings are in the tank and McCain is going to need to seperate himself from the failed Bush policies. The first video is the DNC video I mentioned earlier and the second is from a group called the "Campaign to Defend America". For your viewing pleasure...
Stay positive, go negative, or door number 3?
Hi all, at Gordon’s request I tried to put together some of my thoughts on the presidential campaigns. I set forward to write a post laying out some of the ways that the media’s political vocabulary fails to capture dynamism of the Democratic nomination fight. But I was stopped short by this interesting blurb appeared in Friday’s Hotline:
“Obama's camp ‘is wrestling with how to respond forcefully’ to Clinton's ‘recent attacks on his record without violating the positive, uplifting spirit at the core of his message.’ But ‘Obama's arsenal is limited by his insistence that his campaign not engage in below-the-belt attacks.’"
The quoted excerpts are from a story in the Boston Globe titled “Obama vies to push back, stay positive.” The author of the piece insinuates that Obama has two strategic options: To stay positive or to go negative.
But are these really the only possibilities? In short: No.
While the conventional wisdom of politics says that political messages can be categorized as either positive or negative, it would be more accurate to delineate political messages not according to their tone, but by their purpose. And there are only two purposes: To define an individual (either the candidate or the opponent) or to define the choice.
While defining an individual fits neatly into the positive/negative media dichotomy, comparative messages threaten to break those confines. Comparative messages offer candidates the opportunity to remain positive while negating an opponent’s strategic advantage.
Though most have heard messages described as “comparative,” it’s a term usually used by talking heads and consultants who are trying to put a positive face on blatantly negative attacks. Confronted with broad misuse of the term by professional spinners, an understandably jaded media has abandoned the phrase, and apparently the concept, altogether.
Unfortunately, the media’s rejection of “comparison” and embrace of “positive vs. negative” has cut short their ability to describe the Obama/Clinton race.
While most believe that Obama needs to find a way to turn the momentum back in his favor, the media has argued (and his campaign’s public statements have agreed) that unleashing a barrage of negative personal attacks against Clinton would undermine the broader narrative of “new” politics he has worked to cultivate. Seemingly confronted with limited options, the media continues to tell a story of a campaign unable to regain the upper hand.
Despite the media’s characterization, Obama’s campaign has a powerful opportunity to define the choice being presented to Democratic voters. Obama’s broader messages of change, unity and political civility have often contrasted sharply with the Clinton campaigns political tactics and “experience” message.
Let’s look at Clinton’s “3 a.m.” ad as an example.
The ad qualified Clinton in voters’ minds and put the emphasis on security. Aired in the closing days before the Ohio and Texas primaries, the Obama campaign had little time to respond.
Many believe the campaign should respond by going negative – Denigrating Clinton’s crisis “experience” as artificial and attacking her limited experience in military matters.
The campaign chose to remain positive while attempting to co-opt Clinton’s message. They aired an ad highlighting Obama’s judgment on the Iraq war. Ultimately, the force of Clinton’s ad was not blunted, and late-deciding voters tilted sharply in her favor.
What the campaign missed was an opportunity to define the choice on a broader level. To make the campaign not about experienced vs. inexperienced, but between fear and hope, and between political and unifying. Obama could have made the argument that Clinton’s ad was a page from the old political playbook that says; when your poll numbers are low you try to scare people. And he could have argued that was the kind of politics that prevented change and kept the country from unifying. This response would have allowed Obama to reinforce his central message and refocus the debate away from security and experience.
Confronted with this response, the media wouldn’t have been able to say that Obama had gone negative.
So, going into Mississippi and Pennsylvania, what strategies will the campaigns employ? Will Obama go “comparative?” And, if he does, how will the media react?
“Obama's camp ‘is wrestling with how to respond forcefully’ to Clinton's ‘recent attacks on his record without violating the positive, uplifting spirit at the core of his message.’ But ‘Obama's arsenal is limited by his insistence that his campaign not engage in below-the-belt attacks.’"
The quoted excerpts are from a story in the Boston Globe titled “Obama vies to push back, stay positive.” The author of the piece insinuates that Obama has two strategic options: To stay positive or to go negative.
But are these really the only possibilities? In short: No.
While the conventional wisdom of politics says that political messages can be categorized as either positive or negative, it would be more accurate to delineate political messages not according to their tone, but by their purpose. And there are only two purposes: To define an individual (either the candidate or the opponent) or to define the choice.
While defining an individual fits neatly into the positive/negative media dichotomy, comparative messages threaten to break those confines. Comparative messages offer candidates the opportunity to remain positive while negating an opponent’s strategic advantage.
Though most have heard messages described as “comparative,” it’s a term usually used by talking heads and consultants who are trying to put a positive face on blatantly negative attacks. Confronted with broad misuse of the term by professional spinners, an understandably jaded media has abandoned the phrase, and apparently the concept, altogether.
Unfortunately, the media’s rejection of “comparison” and embrace of “positive vs. negative” has cut short their ability to describe the Obama/Clinton race.
While most believe that Obama needs to find a way to turn the momentum back in his favor, the media has argued (and his campaign’s public statements have agreed) that unleashing a barrage of negative personal attacks against Clinton would undermine the broader narrative of “new” politics he has worked to cultivate. Seemingly confronted with limited options, the media continues to tell a story of a campaign unable to regain the upper hand.
Despite the media’s characterization, Obama’s campaign has a powerful opportunity to define the choice being presented to Democratic voters. Obama’s broader messages of change, unity and political civility have often contrasted sharply with the Clinton campaigns political tactics and “experience” message.
Let’s look at Clinton’s “3 a.m.” ad as an example.
The ad qualified Clinton in voters’ minds and put the emphasis on security. Aired in the closing days before the Ohio and Texas primaries, the Obama campaign had little time to respond.
Many believe the campaign should respond by going negative – Denigrating Clinton’s crisis “experience” as artificial and attacking her limited experience in military matters.
The campaign chose to remain positive while attempting to co-opt Clinton’s message. They aired an ad highlighting Obama’s judgment on the Iraq war. Ultimately, the force of Clinton’s ad was not blunted, and late-deciding voters tilted sharply in her favor.
What the campaign missed was an opportunity to define the choice on a broader level. To make the campaign not about experienced vs. inexperienced, but between fear and hope, and between political and unifying. Obama could have made the argument that Clinton’s ad was a page from the old political playbook that says; when your poll numbers are low you try to scare people. And he could have argued that was the kind of politics that prevented change and kept the country from unifying. This response would have allowed Obama to reinforce his central message and refocus the debate away from security and experience.
Confronted with this response, the media wouldn’t have been able to say that Obama had gone negative.
So, going into Mississippi and Pennsylvania, what strategies will the campaigns employ? Will Obama go “comparative?” And, if he does, how will the media react?
Bush’s endorsement
I have been waiting for this moment for several weeks. President Bush has finally decided to endorse Senator McCain last Wednesday. This campaign event turned into a non-event. Firstly, I found President Bush’s endorsement very formal. Indeed, President Bush waited Senator McCain on the steps of the White House, they posed inside the White House seating in front of the fire place, and then gave a short press conference in the Rose Garden. The fact that President Bush received John McCain the same way he receives statesmen gives McCain a statesman dimension, but, in the meantime, Bush’s endorsement appeared to be a little bit cold and forced. Secondly, President Bush waited Senator McCain to be sure to win the GOP nomination before receiving him. By doing so, on the one hand President Bush has clearly chosen not to take part to the presidential race, and on the other hand he has chosen not to stand aloof from it.
On John McCain’s side, the question is: will President Bush’s endorsement benefit him? It is a fact that Bush’s popularity has never been so low. However, by being received like a statesman, McCain can boast a picture that none other candidate will. Moreover, by making this endorsement a non-event, it is not an episode of the campaign that the other candidates will usefully use against Senator McCain. In order for McCain to avoid any critics regarding his endorsement, President Bush used a surprising way to endorse Senator McCain: “If my showing up and endorsing him helps him — or if I'm against him and it helps him — either way, I want him to win."
On John McCain’s side, the question is: will President Bush’s endorsement benefit him? It is a fact that Bush’s popularity has never been so low. However, by being received like a statesman, McCain can boast a picture that none other candidate will. Moreover, by making this endorsement a non-event, it is not an episode of the campaign that the other candidates will usefully use against Senator McCain. In order for McCain to avoid any critics regarding his endorsement, President Bush used a surprising way to endorse Senator McCain: “If my showing up and endorsing him helps him — or if I'm against him and it helps him — either way, I want him to win."
Friday, March 7, 2008
The Candidates and the Money
Barack Obama’s campaign stepped up attacks on Hillary Clinton’s campaign after winning just the state Vermont on Tuesday with Hillary winning Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island. This seems to be a reflection of her tactics against him leading up to March 4th. Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe spoke about Clinton’s finances on Thursday saying,
"Considering the huge amounts of money they have made in recent years, they've contributed their money to the campaign, some of those relationships financially have been with individuals who have come under quite a bit of scrutiny for possible ethics transgressions, its essential to know where the American people are getting there money from...If Sen. Clinton is not being open and honest about her tax returns or her experience on the campaign trial, you have to wonder if she'll be open and honest with the American people as president."
This seems to echo what Clinton has said about Obama and donor Tony Rezko. While Obama kept none of this money, Clinton still needs to reveal who has been funding her run for president. The American people should know where this support is coming from. By not releasing this info to people, Clinton leaves herself at risk to attacks by others. It seems that if there is nothing to hide, then she would have released them by now, so if there is nothing to hide, she will only be hurting herself.
– CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney contributed to this article.
"Considering the huge amounts of money they have made in recent years, they've contributed their money to the campaign, some of those relationships financially have been with individuals who have come under quite a bit of scrutiny for possible ethics transgressions, its essential to know where the American people are getting there money from...If Sen. Clinton is not being open and honest about her tax returns or her experience on the campaign trial, you have to wonder if she'll be open and honest with the American people as president."
This seems to echo what Clinton has said about Obama and donor Tony Rezko. While Obama kept none of this money, Clinton still needs to reveal who has been funding her run for president. The American people should know where this support is coming from. By not releasing this info to people, Clinton leaves herself at risk to attacks by others. It seems that if there is nothing to hide, then she would have released them by now, so if there is nothing to hide, she will only be hurting herself.
– CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney contributed to this article.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Us Weekly Interview With Barack (as mentioned in class)
In the new issue of Us Weekly, presidential candidate Barack Obama invited news director Lara Cohen to join his campaign for a day. He described some of his best Just Like Us moments, and took our Presidential Pop Quiz (where he revealed that his daughters think Britney and Paris are "yuck").
Some excerpts from the Us interview:
How familiar are you with Us Weekly?
My wife reads it.
Do your daughters Sasha and Malia ever ask about Britney Spears?
Actually, yeah. But they're very sensible. They're pretty down on Britney and Paris and all of that. They think that's very "yuck." They're way more into Hannah Montana and Beyonce. They got to go backstage and meet Beyonce and they just love her to death.
Your supporters include Oprah Winfrey. Ever been starstruck?
I don't really get starstruck. Everyone I've met has been very nice and friendly, like Kal Penn. During the writers' strike, he was like a staffer! And Scarlett Johansson has been traveling a lot. George Clooney is a good friend. He and I worked on Darfur issues together. I'm always impressed by people who do their homework... and use their celebrity to advocate for issues. George does that just about as well as anyone I know.
So, boxers or briefs? Bill Clinton said he wore boxers in a 1992 interview with MTV.
I don't answer those humiliating questions. But whichever one it is, I look good in 'em!
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Close Race A Dividing Factor
I meant to post this the day after the March 4th primaries but I still feel it is relevant.
I am one of the most indecisive people ever, which explains why despite all of my conversations, research, and reflection thoughout this Democratic primary, I have not been able to decide between Obama and Clinton (and we can throw in Edwards too). Until now. While I supported both candidates before, the recent competition has unveiled my alleigance. I find myself rooting more and more for Hillary Clinton as I start to like Barack Obama less and less. How many other Democrats are feeling the same way? It's like a close football game - even if you weren't rooting for anyone at the beginning, you can't help but choose a side when the competition is so stiff and the stakes are so high. Yesterday's contests felt like the last 10 seconds of the final quarter, and if Hillary lost, the game would essentially be over - which psychologically may be why I swung to her - I can never resist an underdog.
I am one of the most indecisive people ever, which explains why despite all of my conversations, research, and reflection thoughout this Democratic primary, I have not been able to decide between Obama and Clinton (and we can throw in Edwards too). Until now. While I supported both candidates before, the recent competition has unveiled my alleigance. I find myself rooting more and more for Hillary Clinton as I start to like Barack Obama less and less. How many other Democrats are feeling the same way? It's like a close football game - even if you weren't rooting for anyone at the beginning, you can't help but choose a side when the competition is so stiff and the stakes are so high. Yesterday's contests felt like the last 10 seconds of the final quarter, and if Hillary lost, the game would essentially be over - which psychologically may be why I swung to her - I can never resist an underdog.
In track and field, there are two races at a meet to determine a winner. First, the trials narrow the many competitors down to a final 5 or 6 (depending on how many lanes the track has). Then the final few compete head-to-head for the gold. Strategywise, a runner only runs as fast as she needs to in the trial race to preserve energy for the finals. If she runs too hard in the first race, she might not have enough gas when its REALLY important. The Democrats are having a tight and exhausting trial race right now, but I worry that neither of them will have the endurance to compete with freshly-rested McCain when the time comes. Ultimately, it's all about November.
Will we be able to recover when the Presidential elections begin? Will we even have the energy left?
CNN thrives thanks to '08 coverage
Odds are you’ve been watching more news than usual over the past several months in order to follow the daily drama and suspense involved in the unfolding of this momentous campaign. You’re not alone. An article in today’s New York Times discusses how this riveting primary season has been a major boon to CNN.
Whether watching one of the debates saved to my DVR, checking in on Wolf Blitzer in the Situation Room, being mesmerized by John King’s nimble fingers manipulating the touch screen map of voting results, gazing into Anderson Cooper’s piercing blue eyes, or perusing CNN.com for election updates at work, I must confess that I have spent as much time with CNN lately as I have with many of my close friends.
Highlights from the NYT article include background about CNN’s trajectory over the past few years, including key decisions about editorial direction and programming; details about the management style of the president of the CNN news group, Jim Walton; and the status of the bitter competition between CNN and its main rival, Fox News. A spokeswoman for Fox News even attacked Walton’s reputation for keeping a low-profile by saying: “When the debates are over and CNN slides back down to MSNBC’s level, we assume Jim will return to the comfort of Time Warner’s witness protection program.” Ouch!
Whether watching one of the debates saved to my DVR, checking in on Wolf Blitzer in the Situation Room, being mesmerized by John King’s nimble fingers manipulating the touch screen map of voting results, gazing into Anderson Cooper’s piercing blue eyes, or perusing CNN.com for election updates at work, I must confess that I have spent as much time with CNN lately as I have with many of my close friends.
Highlights from the NYT article include background about CNN’s trajectory over the past few years, including key decisions about editorial direction and programming; details about the management style of the president of the CNN news group, Jim Walton; and the status of the bitter competition between CNN and its main rival, Fox News. A spokeswoman for Fox News even attacked Walton’s reputation for keeping a low-profile by saying: “When the debates are over and CNN slides back down to MSNBC’s level, we assume Jim will return to the comfort of Time Warner’s witness protection program.” Ouch!
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
The Superdelegate
Just when I thought that I had finally understood most of the American political process, I came across the super-delegate today in class. Just in case there is anyone else out there who got thrown off by this, a super-delegate is a delegate that is not chosen by the primary or caucuses in each state, but is seated based on their current or former office. Most importantly, they can support any candidate for nomination. After reading this up, I am surprised that there has not been much coverage or mention on the super-delegate in the press, especially seeing as how close it is getting on the democratic front... maybe someone can help shed some light on this?
Jayz - Simmons - Obama
http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/jay-z-russell-simmons-endorse-obama-mos-def-responds
Please view this link. I am wondering if the world of hip hop affects candidates in a positive or negative light. Positive aspects to me include things such as
image
celebrities create trends
geared toward youth
embraces african americans
Some of the negatives:
The lyrics in many hip hop songs support violence, drinking, drugs, etc..
Reflects the candidates image as being associated with supporting things such as violence
I think that the positives aspects outweigh the cons in todays society. However, I feel that some will detract from supporting Obama because of soem of the things that hip hop represents. It poses an interesting subject.
Please view this link. I am wondering if the world of hip hop affects candidates in a positive or negative light. Positive aspects to me include things such as
image
celebrities create trends
geared toward youth
embraces african americans
Some of the negatives:
The lyrics in many hip hop songs support violence, drinking, drugs, etc..
Reflects the candidates image as being associated with supporting things such as violence
I think that the positives aspects outweigh the cons in todays society. However, I feel that some will detract from supporting Obama because of soem of the things that hip hop represents. It poses an interesting subject.
Angie Harmon / Republicans in Hollywood Party
here's the Angie Harmon quote:
Add Angie Harmon to the list of celebrities publicly supporting their favorite presidential hopefuls.
Her pick? Republican John McCain.
"There are a lot more people in L.A. voting for McCain than you think,” Harmon said in the newest issue of Us Weekly, on newsstands now. “We have an underground Republican Party!”
Picking Off Swing Voters
One of the more interesting topics that I have read a few articles about in the past few weeks is the projected match-ups between McCain and Obama or McCain and Clinton. A couple of weeks ago, initial polls seemed to indicate that Obama had a higher chance of defeated McCain and that he was actually projected by some to beat Clinton in a head-to-head voters. A very new interesting article by the
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080304/NATION/326810167/1001
Can Hilary win?
I believe that Hilary can turn to the race if she becomes more vulnerable. I heard a student make a very important suggestion for the Hilary Campaign; she said that she feels that Hilary should ask her supporters what else could she do to better serve the public. She make an important distinction is saying that she should not say what should I do now, but more like what more can I do?
Hilary’s debate in which she told Obama that she feels honored to be in this presidential election and she admitted that she has faced difficulty in her life. This approach that she took in this debate was very effective and it was heart felt to watch her be more personable and share a more sensitive side of her personality. It also seemed effective because she put down her guard and was finally vulnerable to the public. If Hilary continues to do what she did in this debate she might be in the position for her to steal the nomination away from Obama and finally shift the campaign in her favor.
Hilary’s debate in which she told Obama that she feels honored to be in this presidential election and she admitted that she has faced difficulty in her life. This approach that she took in this debate was very effective and it was heart felt to watch her be more personable and share a more sensitive side of her personality. It also seemed effective because she put down her guard and was finally vulnerable to the public. If Hilary continues to do what she did in this debate she might be in the position for her to steal the nomination away from Obama and finally shift the campaign in her favor.
Democratic Unity
The past couple of weeks, my blogs have focused on the current situation of the Democratic Party. I have strongly emphasized that there is a lack of unity in the party and looked at whether this will hurt the Democrats in the general election. Before the primaries, it seemed like the Democrats had the election in the bag. Now, the lack of unity amongst the party has drawn concern on whether or not the Democratic Nominee will win the election in November. As a citizen who would like to see the Democrats regain the Oval Office, I have grown more and more concerned about the current state of the party.
I was very intrigued when I came across an article today entitled "Bringing the Democrats together." NBC News Producer Ken Strickland addressed and validated a lot of my concerns. I became more worrisome when I discovered that Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania shares my opinion that the unity issue is bigger than many people realize. He answers my question from last week believing that carrying out the nomination process is going to make it harder to unify the party for the general election. Casey believes that the only way the democrats can win in November is for Obama and Clinton to achieve "real unity, not just consensus." He further goes on to say, "It's one thing for Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton to work together [on] principles, but it's much harder to get your workers, your supporters to really work together and not just go through the motions. If we just have the veneer of unity and people going through the motions, John McCain wins." Do you agree with Casey's thoughts? Do you think it will be possible for the Democrats to achieve real unity?
Lastly, Strickland made me look at this whole thing from a different perspective. He questions "who's going to help heal the wounds of the party when the nominee is finally selected." I took that even further and am now trying to answer, which candidate, Obama or Clinton, will have the ability to reunite the party in time for the November election.
I was very intrigued when I came across an article today entitled "Bringing the Democrats together." NBC News Producer Ken Strickland addressed and validated a lot of my concerns. I became more worrisome when I discovered that Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania shares my opinion that the unity issue is bigger than many people realize. He answers my question from last week believing that carrying out the nomination process is going to make it harder to unify the party for the general election. Casey believes that the only way the democrats can win in November is for Obama and Clinton to achieve "real unity, not just consensus." He further goes on to say, "It's one thing for Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton to work together [on] principles, but it's much harder to get your workers, your supporters to really work together and not just go through the motions. If we just have the veneer of unity and people going through the motions, John McCain wins." Do you agree with Casey's thoughts? Do you think it will be possible for the Democrats to achieve real unity?
Lastly, Strickland made me look at this whole thing from a different perspective. He questions "who's going to help heal the wounds of the party when the nominee is finally selected." I took that even further and am now trying to answer, which candidate, Obama or Clinton, will have the ability to reunite the party in time for the November election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
