In the Clouds - Election 2008

Barry-Bobby Comparison

2008-12-04T09:30:00.002-05:00

Even if Bobby Jindal's campaign tries to steer away from this as much as possible, it is simply inevitable that their candidate will be compared to President Barack Obama. How this comparison will be handled, however, is still to be determined. One thing that will not work for the Republican campaign for Jindal's 2012 presidency is if he is portrayed as "Obama Jr." or "trying to fill Barack's shoes" (the latter of which will be difficult considering Obama wears a size 12). The media and voters will need to get a sense of Bobby's identity, and the constant comparison between these two historic political figures may present a struggle for Jindal to portray the "real" Bobby--or will it be Piyush? One thing the media will certainly pick up on is the double name trend in Jindal's family, and this can either work for him or against him. Personally, to the majority of American voters, I think Jindal stands a better chance if he presents himself as Piyush and Supriya, with their three children Selia, Shaan and Slade. However, the Grand Old Party will most likely favor Bobby and Sue, with their kids Elizabeth, Robert and Ryan (the children's second names).

Whatever he decides to call himself, his appearance, demeanor and ideals will be on trial against Barack's, and not simply because they are both minorities, but also because they are both family men with young children, politically inexperienced (according to some) and both represent an kind of "change" for America (even if Jindal doesn't run on that motto, it will be prevalent).

As a sort of first-look comparison of the two politicians, I found each of their appearances on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno (it's important to compare them in the same atmosphere). Below are Bobby's and Barack's clips, respectively.

Click Here for Bobby Jindal on the Tonight Show (embedding was disabled)

Barack on the Tonight Show

Notice the different in their comfort levels? Leno introduces Barack as a rock star, and in many ways, he portrays that on the scree. From his swagger walking on stage to his unbuttoned jacket and leaned back posture to his jokes about family, he seems 20 times more confident and comfortable than Bobby. While these videos were taken sometime in 2007, I think Jindal still has some sorting out to do when it comes to his on-stage presence. Bobby needs to decide who he's going to be and own it!

Very Important!!

2008-12-02T14:24:00.011-05:00

Hey guys! This is my most important post of the semester... well almost...I thought the Wikipedia one was pretty good. :)

Anyway, I think it was fairly unanimous that we would have a bit of a party next Monday, so here is the place to post your contribution to our soiree.

Here is what I'll be bringing--Rocky Road Brownies!

Lauren will bring -- Homemade Oreos!

Richard and Harry will bring -- Indian Food!

Kevin will bring -- Drinks!

Mary will bring -- Spinach Dip!

Sarai will bring -- Pumpkin Bread/Gingerbread

Please post a comment with what you'd like to bring and I'll either update this post periodically or you can just click on the comments below to see what we've got.

And if anyone feels like celebrating Riggio-style, feel free to bring some champagne/wine to toast the end of a fine class. :)

Better read those Terms of Use!!

2008-12-01T01:57:00.002-05:00

This may not be entirely applicable to politics, but a case back in 2006 of a woman who impersonated a fictional 13 year-old boy on MySpace causing a young-girl to commit suicide was recently (in the last few months) resolved. The verdict "expands the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which was passed in 1986 as a tool against hackers, to include social networking Web sites."

Here is a synopsis of the case, disturbing really: "Drew, 49, of Dardenne Prairie, Mo., posed as a teenage boy, 'Josh Evans,' using a MySpace account to send romantic, then disturbing, messages to one of her daughter's classmates, 13-year-old Megan Meier. Meier thought she was messaging with a new, good-looking boy in town. As the New Yorker magazine said in a January article about the case: 'Megan and her peers carried on an online social life that was more mercurial, and perhaps more crucial to their sense of status and acceptance, than the one they inhabited in the flesh.' Meier, who suffered from depression, killed herself in October 2006 soon after reading a message from Drew's account that said: 'The world would be a better place without you.'"

So what does this mean for sites like WikiLeaks, the Huffington Post and other non-traditional news sites that are not always 100% accurate? What does it mean for bloggers who post false information? It means, you could potentially, if this law is expanded even more, be held criminally responsible for your words. Perhaps this will have an effect on future elections? (There, I tied it in.. ) :)

Bobby's to-do list

2008-12-01T01:23:00.003-05:00

A recent MSNBC article evaluated the possibility of several Republican officials running for the presidential ticket in 2012. The results of combined Gallup surveys of nearly 800 Republicans and GOP-leaning independents conducted between 11/5 and 11/16 were:
Candidate Favorability to run in 2012
Sarah Palin 67%
Mitt Romney 62%
Mike Huckabee 61%
David Petraeus 49%
Rudy Giuliani 48%
Bobby Jindal 34%
Jeb Bush 31%
Charlie Crist 23%
Lindsay Graham 21%
As you can see, Bobby doesn't appear to be as far up the list as the media is currently broadcasting. But the article offers an explanation for this is as well.

First, many who are not familiar with a name just automatically
choose the "would not like to see run" option, and that is the most
likely explanation.

Second, at 37, almost a decade younger than even the youthful
President-elect Barack Obama, there could be some "he's too young"
reasoning involved here.

Third, and probably insignificant in number, are Louisianans who
think he is badly needed in the state, hoping that he can reverse
the, say, six or seven decades of lousy public policy choices that
have put the state in the terrible shape it's in. But that probably
doesn't amount to much in a national poll and might be offset by
those proud that Louisiana could offer up a contender who,
uncharacteristically for the state's governors, is both smart and honest.

The final explanation, held till last for a reason, is race. The son of
two immigrants from India, he would look different from any previous
GOP nominee or president, just as Obama was unique among serious
Democratic contenders and past occupants of the White House.
During Jindal's first (and unsuccessful) run for governor, he performed
no worse in urban, heavily Democratic areas than any other Republican.
In the suburbs, traditionally Republican-leaning if not strongholds,
Jindal did very well. It was in the small towns and rural parts of the
state in 2003 that Jindal underperformed what a Republican should
be expected to win, and that was undoubtedly racially driven. Those
voters were likely to be those with the least familiarity with Indian-
Americans and least open to change. By the time Jindal ran again,
successfully in 2007, he won them over.

These appear to be a brief summary of what Jindal might face if he, in fact, decides to run for high office in 2012. What are the solutions? First, create a strong national profile (or, hire Obama's campaign team), utilize Internet networking sites, and dominate the YouTube culture with music videos, video diaries, speeches, and generally motivating footage to capture the attention of young viewers. Second, make some really good political decisions and policies, right about now, to thwart the accusations of your "lack of experience" later. By creating serious and tangible "change" in Louisiana, you can resolve both the second and third issues. As for the race issue, I'm hoping, in four years, after progress and a successful Obama first term, it will be as close to a non-issue as possible.

What are some things already working for Bobby Jindal?

The catch for Jindal in 2012 is that the contraction in the size and shape
of the Republican Party has made those least open to his candidacy more
influential than before. Younger, upscale, college and graduate-schooled white
suburban voters abandoned the GOP en masse, and those are precisely the ones
that might be most open or excited by a Jindal candidacy. Thus the question,
Could Jindal draw them back?

And you thought you were web savvy...

2008-12-01T00:53:00.023-05:00

To give us a better perspective of the scope of social networking in our Internet-fueled society, here is a list I stole from Wikipedia of various networking sites. I reorganized the list by registered users (I apologize if it's a little difficult to read).

See many you are a member of.... I, sadly, only belong to 10.. looks like I have some catching up to do!

I'M BACK!!

2008-11-30T23:15:00.003-05:00

So I have been MIA for a little while, but no need to fret, I'm back in action!

A lot has happened since my last post, but for now I will just address the topic of this week's discussion--social networking and its place in political media.

To begin, take a look at Barack Obama's Twitter page. Not very insightful, or recently updated, but available nonetheless. And does John McCain twitter, you may ask? Of course not, but one of his aides does. I have to admit, his is a little more interesting....

And even more pertinent to tomorrow's class--Bobby Jindal's tweets and twitts! Looks pretty presidential, no?

Here's an interesting little comparison:

Barack Obama followers: 144,203
John McCain followers: 5,610
Bobby Jindal followers: 464
Sarah Palin followers: 10
Mike Hucakbee followers: 0

Al-Qaida is angry...aren't they always?

2008-11-20T20:51:00.002-05:00

I thought it was rather interesting that the story of Wednesday's audio message from Al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahri is being posted, broadcasted and published most heavily by conservative, right-wing media sources. It seems to be all over their sites. And I wonder if this is a way to criticize the incoming administration based on terrorists' disapproval of American strategies and actions. Would the message from Al-Qaida be any different if McCain were elected? I think not, yet some conservatives seem to think so...

Uber-Conservative News

2008-11-20T20:16:00.002-05:00

In my search for right wing news that pertains to this week's discussion, I came across a wonderfully applicable website--RightWingNews.com!

The top story on this site is a post from a Conservative blogger who calls himself "The Other McCain," aka Robert Stacy McCain. The particular post highlighted is a response to Courtney's favorite, Andrew Sullivan, and his remark that gay marriage can be interpreted as the "original intent" of the founding fathers by the phrase "civil equality." His post is well worth reading, as it is unbelievably right wing and, even though he predicted I'd say it, extremely homophobic. He goes so far as to support Rod Dreher's comment that the protesters in California are the real bigots in this case, with their signs, chants and recklessness!

Here's another poster on the same site talking about how Obama's presidency will result in a steady flow of "absurd racist claims," like the recent Connecticut man who apparently claimed breathalyzers discriminate against blacks.

FOX news thinks Obama will disappoint....naturally

2008-11-20T19:59:00.002-05:00

A FOXnews story run yesterday discussed the lofty promises made by the Barack Obama campaign before the Presidential election. Fox's Wendell Goler does not seem to think Obama has any chance of upholding his promises and establishing all the policies he once advocated. Rather, there is a thought that our new President has set the bar a little too high for himself, and the media, in their comparisons of Obama to Lincoln, MLK, and FDR, have raised it completely out of reach. So according to Goler, Obama's first major decision will be "who to disappoint first."

She quotes historian Douglas Brinkley who speculated about Obama, "He's going to say, 'Look, I was going to build a levee system in New Orleans that would've cost $60 billion to make the city safe for category 5 storms like I promised, but that was before the meltdown of October, and so now I've got to fix the plumbing of capitalism."

There is a suggestion in her article that Obama continued to promise policies and change that were far beyond the means of our government in these restrictive times knowing that the new President could use the economy as a scapegoat when his administration falls short. While it's an awfully pessimistic way of thinking, I have a feeling FOX is not the only one...

Presidential Codes

2008-11-16T22:46:00.008-05:00

Not sure if anyone else saw this, but I thought it was kind of cool, considering we're always talking about individuals' codes and what it means about their actual personalities.

This photo-story in the Hartford Courant displays 24 pictures of past Presidents, First Ladies and first children with their secret service code names underneath. It's quite interesting how much the names say about their personalities, sort of like summing our "code lists" up in one word.

Here are some of the good ones.

Codenames: Renegade ...............Renaissance .......................Tumbler

What are they talking about?

2008-11-16T14:59:00.002-05:00

Here are some stories I have noticed the media pushing lately (with the exception of the Clinton-Secretary-of-State story since that's everywhere):

1. Automakers Bailout - Fox news ran a story that GOP lawmakers opposed bailing out the auto industry in Detroit, while CBS news reports that Democrats are in favor of the legislation but not without certain strings attached (automakers would be required to explore new technologies for fuel efficiency and environmental safety)

2. Lists for the President-elect - Whether its a story about politicians making wish lists for legislation they are eager to see, or media making lists for Obama's potential new cabinet members and administration, there seem to be a lot of lists floating around. Also rather prominent is the story of Obama's search for at least one Republican for his administration.

3. Same-Sex Marriage Rallies - The 2008 Presidential race was between a fairly liberal Republican, as suggested by his own party, and a moderately conservative Democrat. As a result, it will be very interesting to see the kinds of legislation proposed by our new President after he takes office in January. Barack Obama has admitted openly that he persoanlly opposes gay marriage but does not support a constitutional ban of it. I have a feeling that the recent ban in California will put pressure on the new administration to take a definitive stance on the matter.

4. Obama's Blackberry Affair - No, Obama did not have an affair with someone via his blackberry. Sorry. What I'm referring to is his very famous relationship with his blackberry. Obama has been sited with his handheld device everywhere, it never leaves his side, and he has been known to personally answer all emails with some promptness. However, lately he is being told he must give up his right to personal email and surrender his PDA. For a man whose campaign was so heavily based on the power of the Internet, relinquishing his right to use something as important as email will be quite the undertaking. It was reported, however, that he may be the first President to request a laptop on his desk in the oval office. Really? The first? Wow...

Glimpse of a celebrity presidency...

2008-11-13T19:23:00.006-05:00

Though the election has been over for more than a week now, and the majority of Americans are satisfied with the result, Obamania has not yet died down. Millions of people all over the country are still swooning over our President-elect, campaigning for him with permanent signs on their lawns and creating plans to weasel their way into the celebration on Inauguration Day.

Now, it is not unheard of for people who acquire free tickets to the inaugural festivities to sell them for profit if they are unable to go, but the immediacy and availability of these ticket sales for the start of the Obama administration is unprecedented. It is only one week after the election and already dozens of tickets have appeared on EBay priced anywhere from $1,000 to $7,500! Can you imagine what the cost will be in January?

According to the LA Times, most of these ticket sellers and scalpers are scam artists who claim they will get the tickets at a later date but demand payment immediately. For some people, it may be difficult to tell the difference as some sites like GreatSeats.com seem to be perfectly legitimate in their offer, but unlikely nonetheless.

The popularity of this event is incredible, as a Google search will result in airlines offering discounts to fly to DC in late January, numerous T-Shirt and paraphernelia sites for Obama gear, even a Barack Obama Gold Coin offer, and not to mention the numerous Obama action figures.

Despite all this hype, it looks like a lot of people will be disappointed this January, as the demand for tickets far exceeds the supply. I wouldn't be surprised to see a single ticket going for $25,000 or more come January. There is even a Facebook event titled "Obama's Inaguration" with more members attending than total tickets available: more than 252,000 facebookers!

Here is another fun, slightly over-the-top piece of marketing: One-of-a-kind Cabbage Patch dolls in the likeness of the candidates auctioned on EBay for charity.

Although, I have to be fair and can't claim that this is the result of Obama's celebrity status. Palin, in fact, sold for more than the President-elect (they were auctioned before election night).

I believe the order was Palin ($19,000), Obama ($8,400), McCain ($6,000) and Biden ($3,550.01). Poor Biden.

Halloween Hate Crime

2008-11-06T16:54:00.004-05:00

I think we all probably saw this story covered at some point in the last two weeks, and at the time I didn't think much of it. But considering our discussion of race this week, my thoughts came back to this West Hollywood Halloween display. The residents, Chad Michael Morrisette and his partner, who are fashion designers and use mannequins every year in their Halloween decorations, claimed that the display was "twisted"--the way Halloween decor should be. But most residents, even liberals, thought it went a little too far, and many people raised the question of hate crimes. If it had been Barack Obama's mannequin, they argued, it would be a greater outrage and the city would demand it taken down. But as an effigy of Palin, the act was regarded as free speech and Morrisette was allowed to keep it up through Halloween weekend (as well as get his 15 minutes of fame).

In an election in which race is such a forefront issue, how does this kind of racism factor in? Is it even racism? How would this have been construed if Obama were not the democratic nominee, if the race were among three white men and one white woman? Just how conditional IS the discussion of race in politics?

Video Your Vote

2008-11-06T16:10:00.002-05:00

Remember that ad we watched in class by the woman with the weird neck? Well it turns out that over 1,500 people actually answered the call to "video their vote" and sent it in to PBS. This page on YouTube displays a map with all of the videos from across the country. You can sort by categories such as "voter intimidation," "registration problems," or "first-time voters." Take a look. Some are interesting, while some are just silly.

I like this one... but I'm a sappy girl.

young voters pull through

2008-11-06T15:27:00.003-05:00

Check out this article on the Courant's website that highlights voters age 18-29, especially in Connecticut, whose numbers and candidate choice made a significant difference in this election. Every four years the media speculates that young voters could determine the presidency if they only showed up on election day, and finally, we actually followed through! It took a historic and monumental campaign to get us there, but we should all be proud of our generation for finally fighting back against the stereotypes of indifference and inaction!

Incongruent Numbers

2008-11-04T20:09:00.007-05:00

As it always happens during election nights, different news stations report election coverage in different ways. CNN, for example, is currently displaying only definite wins in their electoral count...

...while MSNBC is presenting projected results from states whose polls have closed but are still processing the ballots (they do not, however, mention that the numbers are not confirmed).

How does this effect election coverage and viewers who are most likely watching only one channel all night long? Is MSNBC setting themselves up to look "silly" if those projected wins don't come through?

Last Words

2008-11-04T19:42:00.006-05:00

Just as we talked about in class last night, the candidates have issued "reflection" montages about the campaign that have very different tones. These (both around 4 or 5 minutes) have replaced the shorter ads featured on their respective YouTube pages I posted earlier.

Here is McCain's very upbeat and energized review of the campaign road, titled "The Mac is Back."

Here is Obama's much more serious speech concluding the campaigning, titled "We Have a Lot of Work to Do."

Voting Do's and Don'ts

2008-11-04T16:15:00.006-05:00

While in line this morning at a school in Simsbury (which is very strange to begin with), all I saw were happy faces. People greeting each other and saying "good morning" and "thanks for coming out." There was no Jerry-Springer-worthy action at the polls to report on, except for one mild incident of a fresh-out-of-high-school young man who seemed quite the eager beaver to vote this morning. He strolled up with a bright smile on his face, proudly donning his Barack Obama T-Shirt with a blown-up image of the candidate's face. To this young man's dismay, the election officials requested that he remove his shirt, to which his response was, "but it's cold." I'm not sure he got it right away, but eventually turned his shirt inside-out and proceeded to his voting cubicle. This started my thinking as to what other rules are enforced on election day that I might not know about, since, to be honest, though I understand why, I was not aware you couldn't wear political paraphernalia to the polls.

So I Googled voting rules and regulations in Connecticut and found some interesting "did-you-know" facts:

-- Connecticut is among the top 15 states with

-- the largest disparities between citizens of color and officials of color in
all elected positions
-- the largest racial disparities in voter turnout
-- the largest low-English-proficient population

Because Courtney did it...

2008-11-04T14:26:00.002-05:00

I seriously don't like Joe...

2008-11-02T23:07:00.003-05:00

This is just silly. I heard this story earlier in the week, but was hoping it was merely a rumor, and considering it is posted on Politico.com, I'm not entirely sure it still isn't. But if it is true, then it's a sad, sad day for music and politics. "Joe the Plumber" has apparently signed a deal, or will be signing, for a country music album that could launch as early as Inauguration day. What?!? Why?!?

While it appears that he refuted the claims about his country music career, the rumors are surfacing because one of his new media managers is country music producer Aaron Tippin. Media managers? At first I sympathized with this poor man whose name was dragged through the mud because of one harmless little question and a bit of miscommunication. But now he is capitalizing on the thirsty media and has somehow extended his 15 minutes into who-knows-how-long.

Whether his future plans are to run for Congress, release an album, or buy that lucrative business that sparked all this, one important question remains: Why do we still care?? And maybe more importantly, how does this reflect on national politics? I bet McCain and Obama are slightly regretting opening the Samuel Wurzelbacher can of worms in that third debate. McCain perhaps moreso, since now it seems that both his Vice Presidential nominee and his central argument for the campaign have gone "rogue,"--neither appear by his side at the rally in Joe's home state!

Last Efforts in the Ad World

2008-11-02T22:47:00.002-05:00

Here are some of the latest ads from McCain and Obama, appearing on YouTube. See what you think about their last efforts.

"I am Joe" for McCain/Palin

"One Day to Change the World" for Obama/Biden

Definitely entertaining...but Presidential?

2008-11-02T22:16:00.004-05:00

McCain's spot on SNL last night was certainly more amusing than Sarah Palin's appearances, but this is now two SNL cameos from the Republican candidates before election day. Smart move? I'm not so sure. Obama's television exposure lately has been nothing short of presidential, and I'm sure he has his many advisors to thank for that. But I wonder what exactly McCain is trying to do? Is he giving up? The 6-minute skit below is one of those entertaining-because-it's-true scenarios, and I'm not sure that's what the American people need to refuel their support or confidence in the Republican presidential nominee. But that's just my opinion.

Interesting also that Sarah Palin did not appear with him. Does her absence reinforce the humorous message Tina Fey presents? It certainly seems so.

PS. Don't forget your free cup of coffee at Starbucks on Tuesday! Woot!

Politics at its best...and worst...

2008-11-02T21:14:00.003-05:00

I have to say that Courtney's post on the "people behind the campaigns" was encouraging, especially in light of so many people that I know who care so little about politics and the outcome of this election. It is inspiring to think that thousands of citizens, young and old, work tirelessly for what they think is a chance at a better future for our country.

But then, I read this article on CBSnews.com that exposes a somewhat darker side of these volunteers. In swing states across the country, there has been a serious effort on the part of the media, celebrities and campaigns to register new voters, but apparently there is an equal underground effort to keep certain voters from registering or voting at all. The article claims that dirty tricks are in no way specific to this election and have been reported in all presidential elections in the past few decades, but the tactics and number of reports this year far surpasses records. From people knocking on individual doors to question a person's legality and citizenship, to anonymous phone calls urging voters to cast their ballot over the phone, to emails instructing people that Republicans and Democrats have different days for voting, Rep. on Tuesday and Dem. on Wednesday, every dihonest and incredulous effort has been made by these "activists" to suppress would-be voters.

Most of the incidents cited in the article illustrate Republican misuse of power in deterring new, young and minority voters from registering or voting Democratic. And while I can't believe that either party would succumb to such measures, I find it hard to believe that all of the fault rests with the conservatives. Surely if there is this kind of corrupt support for the right wing, the leftists must also have their "means of persuasion." But the article mentions nothing of this, and I wonder about media bias and what kind of effect this negative article has on people's views of the Republican party.

I suppose if we want a group of people who care wholeheartedly about politics and the way our country is run, we must also be prepared to have those who ruthlessly abuse politics and refuse to open their eyes to other possibilities. And unfortunately, as Courtney highlights, the media doesn't give much attention to the former.

See... they CAN be impartial...

2008-11-01T17:16:00.003-04:00

It seems that following Obama's infomercial on Wednesday, which drew and held even more viewers than the conclusion of the World Series that followed, media forces have been talking nonstop about the effects this will have on the campaign. They love him or they hate him, it was a great move or a cocky undertaking. But amidst this, I found at least one traditionally liberal news source that was able to run a mostly unbiased article on the economic policies of our two major candidates.

The LA Times ran a piece by Ralph Vartabedian this morning, which headlines on their campaign page, titled "McCain, Obama economic policies appear to be politics as usual." In the article, he compares McCain's economic plan to the tactics used in the Reagan administration, and Obama's policy as similar to Franklin D. Roosevelt, claiming that neither candidate is suggesting any dramatic change from past presidencies. Vartabedian claims that neither candidates' plan will be very effective and that both tend to be short-sighted, focusing on the immediate economic crisis and "dodging the most severe long-term economic problems facing the nation." He also suggests that, as with every election, the biggest problems are those that neither campaign is talking about--the social security deficit and medicare deficit as examples.

Though it's a long article, he has some good comments from economic researchers on both sides of the aisle and makes a very appropriate and educated conclusion-- "You have to vote on the basis of instinct, because neither candidate is saying very much."

Now, while he doesn't promote either candidates' plans, I use the term "mostly unbiased" because I wonder, if you are against both options, are you not still biased toward something else? So is it even possible for a media source to be completely unbiased? Is there a difference between not being in support of anything and being against everything? In my opinion, no...but I am not done searching.

Should McCain be hoping this rain keeps up?

2008-10-28T11:44:00.005-04:00

I would normally have thought it absurd to attribute voter turnout and the outcome of a presidential election to Mother Nature. However, during my 90-minute drive to Hartford this morning, I realized why USA Today thought it important enough to run a story on the effects of rain on the popular vote. The reason? People can't drive!

As soon as it drizzles in this state, trees collapse, power lines go down, electricity is out and all drivers suddenly become 90 year-old women. Connecticut is not alone in the phenomenon, but it surely must be one of the worst. However, I don't think McCain is getting his hopes up for our seven little blue electoral votes swinging to the red because of a monsoon. According to USA Today though, it's a real possibility in other parts of the country.

From the article: "A study conducted by political scientists last year verified the old American political adage that Republicans should pray for rain on Election Day. The researchers found that for every one inch increase in rain above its Election Day normal, the Republican presidential candidate received approximately an extra 2.5% of the vote."

The study mainly focused on precipitation, as it was determined that cold or hot weather alone was not enough to significantly deter people from voting. But rain and snow will do the trick. The article states that poor weather greatly reduces the average number of voters for specific towns (compared with previous voting years). But why is it that "… poor weather conditions are positively related to Republican Party vote share in presidential elections?" Why does rain work for Republicans? Well, they just don't say.

The chart to the left shows how many voters were supposedly influenced by weather in past elections. While the 1992 election by far has the highest number, it was not nearly as close as the 2000 election which comes in second. So is it possible that rain really made Gore lose?

And will it turn this election around for the Republican campaign? Check out Pennslyvania, Ohio, Florida, New Hampshire Virginia and New Mexico below. According to this map... I think not.

Electoral College Progression

2008-10-27T23:45:00.004-04:00

This is an interesting graph I found on electoral-vote.com illustrating which of the presidential candidates won the favor of the electoral college during specific critical times of the campaign. As you can see, according to this account, there are only two instances in which Obama fell below McCain--the first was during the Democratic primaries before he won the party nomination and the second came surprisingly during the Wall Street meltdown just before the first debate. While his favor rose substantially after the debate, he actually experienced an increase before that night, suggesting that perhaps McCain's actions in suspending his campaign were really as detrimental as we all supposed them to be (considering that between the Wall Street meltdown and the debate, the only substantial political happening was McCain's request to postpone the event and head to Washington, rejected by Obama).

The chart also shows the reaction to some of the ads we talked about tonight, specifically the Paris Hilton ad, as well as the Democratic and Republican National Conventions, during which time Obama seemed to be declining as McCain began to rise (assumedly as a result of Sarah Palin).

The October results are particularly interesting and seem to exaggerate the divide between the two candidates, but are supposedly based on factual estimates. Analyzing this chart alone would appear to relieve this presidential election of any "surprise" outcome.

Odd tactics...

2008-10-26T23:09:00.002-04:00

While browsing the Living Room Candidate for campaign 2008 ads I haven't seen yet, I found a particularly interesting take on the media's "love affair" with Obama by the McCain camp. Though it was funded by republicans and aimed at discrediting Barack Obama, the majority of the ad displays media praises of him. While Tucker Carlson's comments are peculiar and bit scary, the rest actually seem complimentary, making me wonder about the effectiveness of running an ad like this. If an undecided voter were to see an ad sponsored by McCain that claimed the entire media was in favor of Barack, what would convince them that these educated professionals are wrong?

This ad demonstrates a tactic in which McCain or other republican representatives have very little roles as the entire three minutes is occupied by media clips. Is this as affective as later ads with voice overs telling people what to think? Which is more respectable, and is honorable as important as affective?

Toddler Campaign Ads

2008-10-20T14:01:00.004-04:00

I found this on a sports fan forum, oddly enough (I love Google searches), but the original is from an article on cracked.com. It was titled, "What Campaign Ads Would Look Like if the Voting Age was 6," highlighting the current silliness of presidential ads lately and stating that they couldn't be any more juvenile than if they were created for kids. Here are the some ads, first for McCain, then Obama.

And here are some if 13 year-old girls were the voter constituency.

Two of my favorites, one for McCain and one, ever so distastfully for Obama....

Finally, the top three (it was a contest for viewers to make ads reflecting the absurdity of the campaigns).

America is like Jesus...

2008-10-19T22:12:00.002-04:00

I don't know if this was meant to be humorous, but I found Joe the Plumber's rant kind of funny and random. He reminds me of one of my dad's friends. I realize he's middle class and all, but why do we seriously care what this guy thinks?

Obama Girl vs. McCain Girl

2008-10-19T21:17:00.009-04:00

Nothing gets youth interested in politics like half-naked girls dancing and singing, except, of course, half-naked girls fighting while dancing and singing. So naturally, the sexy ads appeared just as quickly on YouTube as the comedy videos. A fairly popular video site called BarelyPolitical.com houses all of the "Obama Girl" and "McCain Girl" videos that have been floating around the Internet since as early as spring 2007. I thought they might be a good segue between sexism week and humor week. The two below are sort of the introductory episodes of these two political "representatives" and there are dozens more to follow.

Here we see a sequel of both girls as sort of superheroes--Super Obama Girl (during the primaries so she's mainly opposing Clinton) and the Incredible McCain Girl (spoof on the Hulk.. "don't make her angry, you won't like her when she's angry" as the description says).

SNL Star Sarah Palin

2008-10-19T20:02:00.007-04:00

I'm sure other people have posted about this already, and I apologize for not checking first before posting it again, but below is a video from SNL's website of one of Palin's two cameos on last night's episode. The video shows Amy performing a rap that was "supposedly" written for Sarah Palin to perform, but she forgoes her role in the beginning of the skit claiming that the stunt would be "damaging" to the campaign. Duhh... Media, however, are entertaining the thought that perhaps the skit was written for Sarah rather than Amy.

Regardless, according to statistics found overnight by Nielsen Media Research, Palin's appearance attracted the largest audience for SNL in 14 years, with nearly 17 million people tuning in for the first half hour of the show. The Associated Press claimed the show hadn't seen that kind of viewership since Nancy Kerrigan guest-hosted in 1994 following her assault. However, of the 14 million who continued watching until the end (a huge number for any midnight show), I wonder how impressed they were? Some comments I found stated that they thought her SNL performance was similar to her debate skills--uneventful and slightly boring--while others, including McCain, noted how "wonderful" she was. However, the former group attributes this sentiment to the same reasoning applied to her debates and interviews--we all think she's fantastic if she simply doesn't screw up.

The picture to the right was the only instance in the entire show of Fey and Palin together, and it lasted maybe 2.5 seconds as Fey wisked herself offstage and Palin entered to replace her. The two barely made eye contact, and even in the SNL backstage video, there are no shots of Palin and Fey in the same room. Was this to avoid direct comparison of the imitation to the real thing? And what would that accomplish? Or maybe Tina Fey simply is not fond of Governor Palin, as evidenced by her appearance on Letterman earlier in the week. Whatever the reason, it seems more people tuned in to watch these two women than ever expected, more than half the number of presidential debate viewers! And even though Palin and Fey didn't face off, Palin supporters should be proud of their candidate for her role with proclaimed Democrat and Obama-supporter Alec Baldwin, as their banter, in my opinion, was quite well done. Still, as Jon Stewart says of Palin, expectations are exceeded if she "remained upright and didn't drool."

Did this PR stunt prove anything to America, or was it simply the Republican party's acknowledgement that she really doesn't have much more to lose, so why not play around a little? What does it all mean? I'm sure we'll find out later this week in the polls. But more importantly, what should it all mean, and what impact should something like this really have on a presidential election? Hopefully...less than I'm expecting it will.

Another note on racism...

2008-10-18T01:04:00.002-04:00

I know racism and sexism were our topics for last week, but I thought this was interesting in light of all the "niceties" that have been going around lately. Videos and stories like the Al Smith dinner speeches available on Kasey's blog seem to have masked, even a little, the slander and mud-slinging of the 2008 debates and campaigning. But the video below proves that, even if McCain and Palin are playing nice, the campaign teams are still hard at it.

The LA Times ran an article today about a photo that recently appeared in a Republican newsletter in California illustrating a fake $10 food stamp with Barack Obama's face on a donkey surrounded by fried chicken, kool-aid, and watermelon. Republicans who viewed the newsletter were horrified, but the editor claimed she had no idea the image had racial implications.

Palin imitating Fey?

2008-10-18T00:37:00.003-04:00

So apparently Sarah Palin has taken a cue from past politicians and will be facing her SNL doppelgänger in tomorrow night's show. Unfortunately, this will most likely raise her ratings and popularity, demonstrating she is a "big" enough person to be criticized and imitated. According to newsday.com, Palin told reporters that she is not only looking forward to gueststarring alongside her popular foil, but hopes she has a chance to imitate her as well...that is, Palin imitating Fey imitating Palin, in case you lost track. She said, "I love her, she's a hoot, and she's so talented. It would be fun to meet her, imitate her and keep on giving her new material." I somehow don't think she'll have any problem doing that last one.

Picture Perfect

2008-10-13T01:03:00.005-04:00

Not to exhaust the issue of Sarah Palin's supposedly sexist portrait in the media, I just came across a Fox 61 News page with a variety of photos, including the recently risque leg clip, that helps to illustrate the different ways the media likes to "portray Palin." Here are a few of my favorites.

Now what does it look like they're looking at up there? This next one is a shot from the Vice Presidential debate. I have to say it is just inappropriate. I'm sure Biden was wearing equally nice designer shoes...why don't his feet get any spotlight? Sexism.

And, one of the most controversial photos lately (a few days old, so I apologize) --Palin's Newseek cover. Complete with wrinkles, crow's feet, clumpy mascara, age spots and sun freckles--untouched and unflattering. But she's real, right? Isn't that her whole platform?

Palin's Internet Profile

2008-10-13T00:27:00.003-04:00

In one of my summer classes a few months ago, I conducted a study about the contemporary conception of the "American Dream," incited and proved largely by a very different kind of research - Google search results. The project came to mind when I searched for the term "American Dream" intending to find information about a hip-hop performer I like by that name, and came across dozens and dozens of websites about money, real estate, cars, and, yep, even Internet dating. While I did find information on the rapper I was looking for, very few sites illustrated what I believed was the "classic" American dream. With this in mind, I applied the same logic to the "idea" of Sarah Palin.

The media circulates all sorts of information about sexism, feminism, political platforms and women's rights pertaining to the 2008 election. First with Hilary, then Michelle and now Sarah. Though the case may be different each time, I wonder what matters most when it comes to women in politics? Google search results will tell us...

On the very first page of results, after Wikipedia and the McCain-Palin official websites, the six links above were listed. "Hot photos" were the topic of three, while the others focused on her more serious traits, like parenting, personability and popularity. Where's that other P-word that seems so important.. ya know, politics? I guess it just isn't. Whatever it proves, these results definitely add a new dimension to the discussion of media sexism. Is it them or us? It seems the need for stories uncovering the "more than what meets the eye" part of Palin would be unnecessary if we weren't so blinded by our eyes.

Just how important ARE debates?

2008-10-07T11:29:00.003-04:00

In last night's class, we touched on a few of these and I thought it would be interesting to post this in case anyone wanted some more examples. The most famous "deciding" debates are among these six instances: Kennedy vs. Nixon; Bush vs. Dukakis; Bush Jr. vs. Gore, etc. Click the picture below to see how the media thinks debates affect the outcome of an election.

In case you didn't know...

2008-10-07T11:07:00.002-04:00

Just in case you weren't abreast in the political platforms of our candidates, here is a fun little game to waste time during your work day. Happy Tuesday!

Triple Dog Standard

2008-10-06T18:04:00.004-04:00

Everyone knows the "double standard" of women in politics. We criticize them when they're too masculine and call them weak when they're too feminine. And men, oh men can just be masculine, warring egomaniacs...that's what we want in a president, right?

Well in this election, I think we've invented a new standard--the Triple Dog Standard. An opinion article in the Boston Herald called Sarah Palin an "affirmative action embarrassment." But what's more interesting than this article are the 234 responses that follow. One man says that other women in politics are just "men wannabes," whereas Palin is "proud to act and be the woman that she is." Does that mean that Palin is the definitive "real woman?" Another woman claims that Palin knows how to get ahead in politics and used it to her advantage, the same way many women use their looks, flirtations and smile to give them an edge over the competition. Now, I must admit, I have done this as well, and I have defended my right to do so. As an intelligent and capable woman, I recognize the shortfalls of our society and realize that sometimes, my brains just don't count as much as I'd like them to. But is it right for a Vice Presidential candidate to follow suit? I say no, but then, I am guilty of the triple dog standard.

Other women support her "true American success story" relating her to the average woman. However, one user named Elanor has a different take on the average woman theme: "Sarah Palin flirted with voters to win them over. It was embarrassing to watch. If she did that on a regular job interview and was hired because of it, she'd be considered the office slut. Men may drool over her, but any woman with self respect would disdain her the cutesy, manipulative, cheerleader chirpiness that she uses to try to get people to come around to supporting her."

It's another world down South...

2008-10-06T17:22:00.003-04:00

According to the LA Times, there has been major talk of racial prejudice in the instrumental swing state of Virginia. With strong labor unions among the coal mining towns of southern Virginia and a relatively large support group for the Democratic party, there's only one problem keeping these proclaimed liberals from voting Obama-Biden in November--they voted for Hilary.

Resident supporters and campaigners for Obama claim that Virginians have a difficult time overcoming the color of Obama's skin, even those who claim to be anti-racism and tolerant of diversity. One constituent stated that Obama "just doesn't seem like he's from America," and remarked that his middle name is Hussein, followed by, "and we know what that means." Whether these voters are simply uninformed or truly racist is uncertain, but the Times cites an article that appeared in a local newspaper by the treasurer of the Buchanan County Republican Party which suggests the latter.

The article is a "spoof" on Obama's platform, as the Times describes it, but to most readers, it is merely racist bigotry. Among other things, Bobby Lee May (the author) claims that every incentive Obama supports involves an increase in taxes, and on a more ridiculous note, that he would hire Ludacris to "paint the White House black" and charge taxpayers for spraypaint for graffiti. The article also suggests that Obama would update currency to reflect diversity with faces of Oprah, 50 Cent, and Paris Hilton, and replace the 50 stars on our flag with a crescent and star logo (representative of Muslims). He even wrote that Obama would replace the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy in our military with a "queer in every foxhole, and a camouflage sex toy in every backpack" requirement, followed by a blunt accusation of Obama as a communist.

I guess with the way race has been handled in major mainstream media, I forgot that people like this still exist. In all fairness, the media has taken quite a position on poking fun at the Republican candidates as well, but are they criticizing Sarah Palin as a woman, or as a politician? Maybe it's just my generation, but I thought America was mature enough to vote on politics--guess we have some growing up to do yet.

Don't vote...

2008-10-01T16:15:00.003-04:00

Another example of celebrity influence, but not pointed toward a campaign. It's a little long (5 minutes) but effective nonetheless (if young people have the attention span for it).

Uh oh...

2008-09-29T14:39:00.004-04:00

So the publicly unpopular, bipartisan-supported $700 billion bailout plan has died, and largely due to the Republican voters. And now we're all wondering, among other things, what will the media say about our presidential candidates, who both publicly supported the failed bill?

So far, news outlets seem to be reporting just the facts, the 228-205 defeat of the bill and the subsequent Wall Street plummet. Few have commented yet on the effect this will have on the current presidential campaign, and maybe because, it's just not that important at the moment.

Interestingly enough, the assumed Republican support was just not there. However, the Senate still has to vote on the plan on Wednesday, and depending on the outcome of that event, there will probably be a move for reconsideration in the House. As for the rest of us, I concur with this viewer's comment on the Huffington Post: Chickeyd says, "I don't know if this is a good thing or a bad thing, that it didn't pass. I think that's the crux of the problem - no one knows."

Wiki wiki what?

2008-09-28T21:58:00.009-04:00

One thing I noticed about Nicholas Carr's article that Brent also commented on earlier in the week is the pervasive use of links in almost all online content. From news articles to personal web pages to online books and even to pictures and photo pages; it seems nowadays that everything is a link to something else, reinforcing the notion that nothing is finite and education is a endless process. This reminded me of the topic for this week's discussion: Wikipedia.

I have to admit, I use Wikipedia more often than I should, and occasionally even for academic purposes, although of course I would never cite it (which is a curious topic in itself, as I have been told by numerous professors that Wikipedia is actually an adequate source of quick, easily digested information, but never quite adequate enough to be quoted in an academic arena). But at times it seems as if Google and Wikipedia are working together in relaying all this supposedly "unreliable" information. In most cases when searching on Google, and I must say, that's the first place I go when I sign online, even if I'm not looking for anything, Wikipedia articles are the first item to appear in the search results. So not only is it the easiest to read, but also the easiest to find. Strengthened by its reputation for "usually" presenting impartial and unbiased articles, and for the idea of its freedom of information, I defend Wikipedia's right to be THE alterable encyclopedia of the 21st Century.

But what is even more interesting than the conversation of the integrity of Wikipedia is discussing the phenomenon that has become "Wiki." You may notice as you read through a Wikipedia article that there are dozens of links for practically any random word. If it has more than five syllables, you'll probably find it linked it a Wiktionary article for those who don't know its denotation, and if it's a person, place or time period, you can rest assured it will be linked to a Wikipedia article explaining its significance. Just as Google turned into a verb in the late 90's, so has Wikipedia since its English-language debut in 2001. To "wiki" something is supposedly to "gain a quick understanding of a topic" and can be used in any context, though it is rarely associated with research done outside of wiki- forums. And by forums, I mean the various wiki-sites that are all connected, related, and, yes, LINKED to each other throughout: Wikipedia, WikiAnswers, Wiktionary, WikiQuote, WikiBooks, WikiSource, WikiNews, WikiSpecies, WikiVersity, and, one I just discovered, WikiLeaks. While WikiAnswers and WikiLeaks are not actually endorsed by WikiMedia (the foundation responsible for the other wiki sites), they are becoming increasingly popular and perhaps have more relevance for this particular course.

WikiLeaks has been around since early 2006 but is most well-known for recently exposing private information about vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, namely, the email hack. WikiLeaks was the site that broke the story practically the same day with screenshots and quotes from her actual emails, though Gawker ran with it and, as a more popular website, took the credit. WikiLeaks also recently posted a leak of a draft of the US Economic Stabilization Act, 2008, quoting an $800 billion bailout, rather than the publicized $700 billion.

So what does the media think of WikiLeaks? Well, from what I gather, it is not a news website but merely a "truth" website, and so news sources can use information provided on WikiLeaks and investigate further. In this sense, it's fantastic. But government agencies tend to disagree. The "mission statement" type explanation of the site's purpose is, "assistance to people of all nations who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and corporations. We aim for maximum political impact. Our interface is identical to Wikipedia and usable by all types of people." Since their launch in 2006, WikiLeaks has been shut down by different governments (it is not limited to the US) at least twice and has been officially blocked by the Chinese government since 2007 (although it claims on the website that, for interested Chinese citizens, there are ways around the block).

Wired.com ran an article last year on the site's success. But not everything WikiLeaks posts is for the good of the country. For example, about two weeks ago, hackers watching Bill O'Reilly's public denouncement of WikiLeaks for publicizing Sarah Palin's emails decided to hack into his website database (BillOReilly.com) and expose the personal information of dozens of his subscribers just to prove a point.

Wiki sites and the freedom of sharing and altering information has become a hallmark of our generation. The Internet-boomers love the option of playing an active role in media communications and shaping the language of our time (hence the exponential popularity of blogs since their introduction). But of course, wiki sites come with potential hazards, the possibility of fraud and false information, and as a result, eventually, somewhere, there must be a censor. But regardless, the notion of responsibility-free reporting, and consequence-free political leaking is very new to the Internet in such an organized manner. What kind of difference could resources like this have made in past political scandals? What could it mean for the future of politics?

And...where will this go? What else can we wikify that could revolutionize our world by giving everyone a voice? WikiWhat? WikiWhy?

ps... this was long, i'm sorry if it hurt.

Funny gets the point across...

2008-09-28T21:39:00.003-04:00

So I haven't been around lately on the blogosphere and I apologize for my absence. To make it up to you, before I get into a serious and lengthy post, here is an SNL video (I'm sure everyone has seen) that critiques Friday's presidential debates. Have a laugh, and come back later.

No debate...no media support...

2008-09-24T18:43:00.005-04:00

Many people have already organized their personal debate watch parties, as per Michelle Obama's suggestion, and news coverage has already begun in anticipation of what would be one of the most-watched political debates in campaign history. But the first presidential debate of this election, set to air this Friday, has suddenly become an even bigger news story, as, pretty close to the last minute, Senator John McCain threw the media a fast one and said... hey, let's put it off!

The Republican presidential candidate issued a statement today claiming that he intends to "suspend" his campaign in an effort to devote his time and energies to solving the current economic crisis. He is calling for bipartisan politics and, essentially, teamwork between the two candidates to develop effective legislation and solutions to the state of the economy.

Tomorrow morning, I will suspend my campaign and return to Washington after speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative. I have spoken to Senator Obama and informed him of my decision and have asked him to join me. I am calling on the President to convene a meeting with the leadership from both houses of Congress, including Senator Obama and myself. It is time for both parties to come together to solve this problem. We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved. I am directing my campaign to work with the Obama campaign and asking the commission on presidential debates to delay Friday night’s debate until we have taken action to address this crisis.

While the tone of his speech was that of genuine concern for the welfare of our nation, his main point was hardly received so affectionately. According to an LA Times article, Senator Obama was in complete agreement that bipartisan politics are necessary to resolve the current crisis, however, he also responded that a political debate between the two candidates is needed "now more than ever."

Obama stated that suspending the debate was the last thing on his agenda:

And despite who suggested what when, the media is not too pleased. As reported on DrudgeReport.com, David Letterman held nothing back in voicing his opposition to the absurd notion of putting a campaign "on hold" for the sake of economic issues. Apparently, McCain was scheduled to appear on Letterman's show tonight, but cancelled stating that his campaign is now redirected to Washington DC. "You don't suspend your campaign," said Letterman, "This doesn't smell right. This isn't the way a tested hero behaves." And he joked: "I think someone's putting something in his metamucil." And he then added, "What are you going to do if you're elected and things get tough? Suspend being president? We've got a guy like that now!"

Both right- and left-wing journalists are eager for a one-on-one presidential debate. Can McCain afford to make any more enemies in the media? Already, this does not look good for the Republican candidate, as media outlets tend to be siding with Obama, quoting over and over again his response that the "next president needs to be able to deal with more than one thing at once." As for a media that has already been denied full access to its presidential candidates, it will be interesting to see the aftermath if the debate on foreign policy, scheduled for 9:00 pm in Oxford, Mississippi on Friday, does not occur.

McCain Age Card

2008-09-24T02:03:00.004-04:00

Just as a commentary on different ways the media is handling McCain's health and age issues (as we briefly touched on in class), I found this video on BarelyPolitical.com's YouTube page. It was posted just yesterday and already received over 20,000 hits. While not an official press or campaign ad, it's interesting nonetheless.

Online news consumption

2008-09-22T16:02:00.003-04:00

Many people claimed the first-ever televised presidential debates in 1960 between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy drastically changed the outcome of that election. Kennedy, they say, looked appealing, calm and confident in his posture, hair, wardrobe and facial expressions, while Nixon was, simply, not. He was disheveled and looked older than his age, but of course that wouldn't affect the validity of what he had to say, right? Many people watching the debate on television asserted that JFK won without a doubt, while those who tuned in on the radio and couldn't see the senator's dapper smile were certain Nixon knew what he was talking about. Nonetheless, JFK won the election, and the rest is history. Since then, much emphasis has been placed on wardrobe choices, hairstyles, and facial movements. But in the Internet generation, I wonder if there is a different image candidates need to worry about?

Below is an interesting chart on the Pew site that plots the percent of Internet users who read the news online. The green line represents the percent of users who have ever gone online and read the news, and the red line represents the percentage of those who read the news online just yesterday. As you can see, the highest number of Internet users in the past ten years are now reading the news online as we near the end of this Presidential campaign.

If more and more people are searching for their political and social updates on the Internet, it would make sense to have handsome, vibrant and appealing resources available to them, and the candidates' website is one good place to start. Tagging on my post below, I wonder what effect this will have on web-savvy Democrat and PC-challenged Republican?

Well, I have more myspace friends than you...

2008-09-22T14:12:00.022-04:00

We all know how incredibly silly it is to compare the number of friends we have on Facebook and MySpace, and yet when that random guy we definitely don't know friends us, we still click "accept" just so the little meter of our popularity - the friend count - goes up one. Well an article on the Pew website recently addressed this phenomenon in reference to the projected popularity of our presidential candidates (how do you like that alliteration).

The article claims that this election is referred to as the "first Internet election" and analyzes some of the ways in which the web has become a platform for campaigning through "organizing, fundraising, networking and analyzing news."

Apparently, throughout most of the campaign, Obama's website and online resources toppled McCain's substantially. Though in recent weeks, the McCain web team has seemed to catch up and now has networking resources online that "rival Obama's." But some other findings of the Pew study were the levels of popularity among the most prominent social networking groups, such as MySpace and Facebook. Obama's MySpace page, which is cleanly laid out and easy to navigate boasts more than 540,000 friends, while McCain's MySpace, a little less traditional in its layout (and personally, more confusing), lists just over 100,000. Obama also has more Facebook supporters by a 5-to-1 margin, and more than four times as many videos posted to his YouTube page, with 1,330 compared to McCain's 279.

An early audit of the presidential candidates' online resources during the primaries revealed that Obama's website was among the most advanced and useful to supporters even back in July 2007, while McCain's "lagged far behind." Even now, Obama has far more tools for supporters interested in grassroots activities, and McCain only recently caught up by adding a personal profile application to his website that Obama had in operation over a year ago.

The very popular MyBO pages (sample on top) on Obama's website have been active for months, and allow for individual profiles, blogs, links, groups and networking with other Obama supporters. They are easy to set up and use and mimic facebook pages. However, until this past month, McCain's options for customization allowed a personal page that resulted in an error message and had very little practicality. In the past month though, the McCain team has completely revamped their website and added McCainSpace, which are personalized pages that are comparable to Obama's with similar features (on bottom).

As for appealing to different demographic groups, Obama's website houses pages for about 20 different groups from veterans to women to kids and environmentalists. McCain's site has only 17 (11 of which were added within the last month), and among those he does not appeal to are LBGTQ, Native Americans, kids under 18, Generation "O" (25-35), seniors, and students. Among those Obama does not include (that McCain does) are racing fans, Catholics, lawyers and Lebanese Americans.

With all of this information and more, the Pew research group determined that Obama is hands-down winning the Internet campaign, even despite McCain's many website enhancements. HitWise reported that of the hits between both websites in the week ending August 30, Obama's received 72% while McCain only had 28%. With all of the additions and efforts made by the McCain team to become a more powerful online force in the past few weeks, it would seem that the Pew research group is correct in its assumption that this election is largely internet based, and maybe the behind-the-times Republican candidate is finally beginning to figure that out. But, is it too late?

What comes first?

2008-09-20T12:02:00.006-04:00

Even though McCain and Obama claimed they would cease the childish attacks and multiple fallacies of this election to focus on the real issues that have been plaguing the American people, it seems nothing can resolve this very elementary feud.

Now I do realize that part of campaigning is to demonstrate to the voters not only why you are the best candidate but also why your opponent is the worst. However, this is just getting old. On FoxNews.com yesterday, Mosheh Oinounou reported in an article entitled "McCain Lights up Obama" that the republican candidate's new slogan (for at least a week or two), referencing Obama's support of war in Iraq, is "Country first or Obama first?" Really now? I won't go into how I feel about that, but what tops it off is Obama's response: "So, when American workers hear John McCain talking about putting 'Country First,'" Obama said, "it’s fair to ask –- which country?" So now our democratic candidate is implying that John McCain, the renowned war hero, is unpatriotic? This is just getting silly.

However, John McCain apparently will be delivering another, much more dignified response at a town hall meeting in New Mexico today (as reported on TheAtlantic.com).

Yesterday, Senator Obama got a little testy on this issue. He said that I am questioning his patriotism. Let me be clear: I am not questioning his patriotism; I am questioning his judgment. Senator Obama has made it clear that he values withdrawal from Iraq above victory in Iraq, even today with victory in sight. Over and over again, he has advocated unconditional withdrawal - regardless of the facts on the ground. And he voted against funding for troops in combat, after saying it would be wrong to do so. He has made these decisions not because he doesn't love America, but because he doesn't seem to understand the consequences of an American defeat in Iraq, how it would risk a wider war and threaten the security of American families. I am going to end this war, but when I bring our troops home, they will come home with honor and victory, leaving Iraq secured as a democratic ally in the Arab heartland.

I'm not quite sure what really comes first for either of these candidates: the US, American people, another country, themselves? Though I think the last option may be the most accurate, it seems in this election, the only priority is winning.

Who wants it more?

2008-09-19T11:19:00.004-04:00

A recent LA Times article analyzed the responses of the presidential candidates to the current unfavorable conditions on Wall Street. Unfortunately, I haven't followed their responses too closely myself, so what was reported in this article was somewhat surprising.

McCain claimed that, if he were President, he would "fire the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission and create an agency to overhaul weakened financial firms," whereas Obama was more in favor of "injecting more money into the current battered financial system."

Both McCain and Obama are clearly making strong decisions in an effort to appear as agents of change for the struggling economy, but who seems more liberal? According to Robert Litan, vice president for research and policy at the Kauffman Foundation, "It has long been Republican economic orthodoxy to warn against government bailouts, and for McCain to embrace the idea is really pretty stunning." Comparing the candidates' solutions at the surface would suggest that McCain is promoting more radical changes to be made in the country's financial situation, perhaps as an effort to fulfill the "maverick" role into which he and his running mate have been cast.

These two videos show the candidates' recent ads for change in Wall Street. While Obama's is longer than McCain's, it also references the McCain team's "untruths" in this campaign and so is not entirely focused on the economy. You decide which sounds more like a proponent of real economic reformation.

McCain - "Foundation"

Obama - "Plan for Change"

The Web of Lies... or, Less than Truths

2008-09-14T11:14:00.004-04:00

The LA Times ran an article on their website this morning that dissects the role of supposed "lies" of this presidential election. While the Times is general a liberal-biased publication, this article grabbed my attention because it actually highlighted mistakes in advertising and accusations made by both sides of the campaign.

I must admit that throughout high school and part of college, I never followed politics and was only interested in the elections when it came to the countdown of electoral votes on TV (Bush-Gore comes to mind with its exciting election day coverage). In the 2004 election, I paid more attention and did my part by voting, and now in 2008, I am trying to make up for years of political ignorance by understanding what these candidates and all their media are throwing at us. While this is only the second presidential election in which I have taken an interest, however, I am well aware that more than 50% of what the candidates, their representatives and their respective media allies dish out is not 100% true. And I suppose, in a way, it wouldn't be quite as exciting if it were.

Cathleen Decker of the LA Times explores the variety and sustainability of lies in this campaign, suggesting that they play a more prevalent role in 2008 than in any other presidential election, and that when candidates are confronted with their misspoken facts and assumptions, the response is to defend rather than repeal. "A campaign adage has proved itself again: Repeat something often enough, and it becomes real, even when it isn't."

Both major party candidates for president vowed to run a different kind of campaign, implicitly promising a break from the spin-fests that past contests had become. But the close race and the tumultuous media environment in which McCain and Obama now find themselves appear to have crushed those notions.

So is the prevalence of lies and falsehoods in this campaign all the candidates' fault? Or is it the media that paints every misstatement as a lie, perhaps when it is really something else?

In this presidential campaign, as in others before it, words can be shaded in a variety of ways -- direct falsehoods, technically accurate but misleading statements, incendiary suggestions or cherry-picked information lacking necessary context. Careful attention to wording is key.

Among the so-called "lies" and "spins" of this campaign are those about kindergarten sex education, lipstick on a pig, the bridge to nowhere, supporting earmarks and loan guarantees for the auto industry, just to name a few. But Decker makes a good point when she highlights the fact that mainstream media is not the only force pushing these controversies down our throats. She quotes Republican political analyst Dan Schnur, "The current media environment allows misstatements from both sides to skitter through the Internet and onto ideologically based cable and radio shows...there's plenty of talk shows and sites to deliver the message when the mainstream media chooses not to."

So how can the Internet generation be sure it's receiving the truth about lies? A lot of research, apparently. Though, it does make me wonder about those strapped-for-time people who read one or two political blogs along with a news column and only get half the story...those people who, before this class, were like me...

May the media be with you...

2008-09-12T13:35:00.011-04:00

As the video below came to my attention today, I began to wonder how many other celebrities are endorsing candidates in this election and what that means in the expanse of the campaign. After all, "Hollywood" is the largest film-making enterprise in the world and its influence in so many aspects of the American people's lives is both incredible and somewhat creepy.

Even for those not following the primaries or presidential election, it is almost impossible not to realize the depth of Obama's celebrity endorsement. It's everywhere.

There are reggae and hip-hop songs made about him that have been playing on popular radio stations, and his celebrity supporters often show up at his speeches, which are then fed to us by all the news media eager to get the prize-winning photo of DeNiro's good side.

But what influence do celebrity endorsers really have on a political campaign, besides their pocketbooks of course? I mean, many of them are actors, after all, which could mean they're just as capable of falsehoods as any other political figure. So they can't be valued as more believable than the candidate himself, right? But then there is the issue of familiarity. As Matt Damon implies below, we really don't know much about Sarah Palin, yet most people in their 20s and 30s know Matt Damon fairly well. And in this respect, Obama has all his constituents covered. With supporters like DeNiro, Chris Rock, Oprah, Halle Berry, Scarlett Johansen, Ben Affleck and George Clooney, the democratic candidate appeals to all ages, ethnicities and genders.

So to combat all this, who does McCain have in his corner? An article from the Daily Standard two weeks ago lists a few who have financially offered their assistance. Among them were Dean Cain, James Caan, Jon Voight, Lou Ferrigno, Adam Carolla, Lacy Chabert, Angie Harmon, Victoria Jackson, Gerald McRaney, Jon Cryer, Lorenzo Lamas, Kevin Sorbo, Patricia Heaton, George Newbern, and Robert Duvall. And among those, I must admit, I only recognize four, although having Hercules' support is never a bad thing. However, Mat Damon's viedo received over 1.5 million views in only two days, and somehow I doubt the Daily Standard has that kind of circulation.

Lipstick Meme

2008-09-10T22:36:00.009-04:00

Perhaps we're all already sick of this story, considering it happened soooo long ago on Tuesday(which alone indicates the role of media in our lives). But what amazes me is the unbelievably rapid retaliation and sequence of events following the last breath after Obama's uttering "lipstick on a pig." As soon as the words escaped his mouth, they were on the title of every political blog and news story on the Internet and by the next day made every newspaper. That kind of publicity can't be bought (well maybe it can) and so the McCain team swam with the momentum of slander and built the comment up as sexism, degradation and disgust.

They even posted a video illustrating Barack Obama as a sexist, chauvinistic "pig." However, before I had a chance to view this clever and righteous web ad, it was removed from YouTube and replaced with the message, "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by CBS Interactive." Darn. But luckily, the John McCain website posted the dialogue of their ad just for people like me. After reading, I have only two words: short and silly.

It's astounding that so many more important issues are being discussed every day by these candidates, yet lipstick is the headline of all the news stories. And really, it wasn't a big deal when McCain used the phrase in reference to Clinton's healthcare plan or Obama's economic plan all in the same election (and posted on his official webpage).

The cartoon below was taken from an LA Times article illustrating the commonality of the term and, at the same time, the frivolity of our political candidates.

An interesting question remains, however: Would the Republican campaign for President have amplified this harmless comment if the media hadn't first latched on? And is it even possible for the media to resist such alliteration as Palin, pit bull, President, pig?

(please note: I do not support the degradation of women, pigs or pit bulls; I happen to be one...a woman, that is...and have kept the others as pets, and I think both my pig and pit bull would be intimidated by Sarah Palin, with or without lipstick)

Happy Wednesday!

2008-09-10T14:25:00.002-04:00

This blog was created as a forum for discussion and exploration of the 2008 presidential election for use in Colin McEnroe's English 865 course at Trinity College. I hope you enjoy what I have to say, and if not, just look at the pretty clouds (picture taken from the peak of Mt. Fuji in case you're curious).