Saturday, October 11, 2008
War of words in presidential campaign intensifies
The war of words in this campaign are getting ridiculous. I understand that trying to make yourself out to be the best candidate possible is what each candidate is trying to do, but to undermine and do things considered "dirty" are ridiculous and needs to be corrected. The problem with these political strategies is that they do not get to the core issues of what our nation needs, but instead they try to put down another person in order to pick themselves up. There needs to be some type of order put into this so that the candidates can stay on topic and voters will be able to decide who they vote for by the issues and not by polluted visions of candidates on television and in the newspaper.
McCain softening his tone?
Leading up to the second presidential debate, John McCain and his representatives made it very clear that they were going to be personally attacking Barack Obama as their new strategy to try and gain some ground in the polls. However, during the debate he did not seem to be attacking and probing as much as many of the electorate thought he would. Perhaps it was because of the format of the debate or Obama’s calm personality, but John McCain did not meet this feisty expectation. In fact, he seemed to be quirky and definitely more engaged than in the previous debate. This toned down rhetoric has even made its way into one of the recent McCain rallies. During a town hall forum in a Minneapolis
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/10/AR2008101002895.html
Does McCain's strategy seem to be working?
After watching the second Presidential Debate on Tuesday night, I found that John McCain changed his image tremondously from the first debate. He appeared to be much more comfortable being in the town hall as well as more willing to say whatever he wanted to. A couple of examples are when he refered to Obama as "that one" as well as the time he added to Obama's dialogue, "did we hear anything about the fine". When a candidate seems to be comfortable in the situation, one would think he would lead in the polls. In this case, McCain isn't ahead, Obama has taken the lead still. The question is, what should McCain do in order to win over Americans?
Friday, October 10, 2008
Barack Obama and Acorn
ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) is an organization that receives about 40% of its revenue from taxpayers and has a history of being left-wing. In fact, a new report from the Consumer Rights League claims that the Chicago-based ACORN has used some public tax dollars it has received and used it on political projects. ACORN is a nationally based organization, and the Washington based ACORN settled the largest case of voter fraud, in which seven ACORN workers submitted 2,000 bogus registration forms. ACORN also has been implicated voter fraud schemes in Missouri, Ohio and 12 other states. Barack Obama has admitted to giving campaign dollars to ACORN for "Get out the vote" campaigns. Furthermore, Barack Obama met with the Chicago-based ACORN when he first moved there. ACORN's administrators were impressed by the ambitious Obama and had him train those workers in the Chicago-based ACORN. After Obama trained this group, they participated in bullying banks and bullied these banks into providing loans to low and moderate income people whom could not pay them off; which is very similar to the housing crisis the country is currently facing.
John McCain has begun to bring this up in his campaign, questioning what Barack Obama's involvement was with ACORN and if he really trained the workers to protest and bully the banks. This has been the current trend for John McCain, whom is facing an uphill battle in the general election and has begun to attack the character of Barack Obama, which many speculate is a last ditch effort for the Arizona Senator. John McCain has spoke of this relationship at several events and has released television advertisements questioning this relationship. This strategy does not support John McCain, it just denounces Barack Obama.
John McCain has begun to bring this up in his campaign, questioning what Barack Obama's involvement was with ACORN and if he really trained the workers to protest and bully the banks. This has been the current trend for John McCain, whom is facing an uphill battle in the general election and has begun to attack the character of Barack Obama, which many speculate is a last ditch effort for the Arizona Senator. John McCain has spoke of this relationship at several events and has released television advertisements questioning this relationship. This strategy does not support John McCain, it just denounces Barack Obama.
Helping the Seniors of this country
In the next couple of sentences i will show how Obama is helping the Seniors in the United States.
- Wants to get name brand drugs switched to generic brands. To help reduce the cost of the many precription drugs that Elders need to take.
- Is very against privatizing social security.
-Does not believe in raising retirement age. also does not want to cut benefits for Social Security and supports the 10.6 percent cut in medicare payments.
-Believes in giving Seniors more choices about their long-term care. Wants to also improve the quality of elder care. This would include more nurses and health care workers.
-Very strong in cutting taxes for seniors making less then 50,000 in a year. the tax break of $1,400 for 7 million seniors. This would help by relieving millions of elders from the stress of filing tax returns.
-One way that Obama believes he can strengthen Social Security is by lifting the payroll tax cap but only on earnings above 250,000.
-Urges younger worker to start saving earlier for their later years.
-Forces firms to put more money into their pension funds to make them solvent so that workers won't be left with a bunch of IOU's after many years of service.
- Wants to get name brand drugs switched to generic brands. To help reduce the cost of the many precription drugs that Elders need to take.
- Is very against privatizing social security.
-Does not believe in raising retirement age. also does not want to cut benefits for Social Security and supports the 10.6 percent cut in medicare payments.
-Believes in giving Seniors more choices about their long-term care. Wants to also improve the quality of elder care. This would include more nurses and health care workers.
-Very strong in cutting taxes for seniors making less then 50,000 in a year. the tax break of $1,400 for 7 million seniors. This would help by relieving millions of elders from the stress of filing tax returns.
-One way that Obama believes he can strengthen Social Security is by lifting the payroll tax cap but only on earnings above 250,000.
-Urges younger worker to start saving earlier for their later years.
-Forces firms to put more money into their pension funds to make them solvent so that workers won't be left with a bunch of IOU's after many years of service.
New Ad Focuses on Relationship with Ayers
McCain's newest attack ad, release Friday, October 10, focuses on making ties between Obama and former terrorist Wiliam Ayers. The point of the ad is to bring into question Obama's honesty, and in turn his trustworthiness in handling the economy. The ad says: "When convenient, he worked with terrorist Bill Ayers. When discovered, he lied. Obama. Blind ambition. Bad judgment." McCain's campaign continues to point out the involvement with terrorist William Ayers, whom was involved in terrorist acts during the 1960's anti-war movement, and points out that Obama has been back and forth on the issue. Obama's campaign has said he was unaware of Ayers' past at a 1995 "get to know your candidate" event hosted at Ayers' home, while Obama has condemned Ayers' past activities. McCain's campaign attacked even further after Obama claimed that he "believed (Ayers) had been rehabilitated" with a response from Tucker Bounds as follows: "Does Barack Obama continue to believe William Ayers has been rehabilitated? Or has Barack Obama changed his mind now that William Ayers is a liability, rather than an asset, to his political ambition?"
Is this an example of the old Kerry flip-flop days? When is enough enough and someone can just come out and confess that they've had relationships with a bad group of people, instead of going back and forth? I feel that this is a stellar example of Obama's character; when backed into a tough corner, deny, deny, deny. Is that what we want our future president to do? Further, should past relationships play a role in whom we select as our President?
Is this an example of the old Kerry flip-flop days? When is enough enough and someone can just come out and confess that they've had relationships with a bad group of people, instead of going back and forth? I feel that this is a stellar example of Obama's character; when backed into a tough corner, deny, deny, deny. Is that what we want our future president to do? Further, should past relationships play a role in whom we select as our President?
"Obama, the Baby Killer"
Some people still believe this is true. For those of you who are belatedly learning about this like me, Obama voted against some bills in Illinois that were about the protection of babies that are aborted but are still alive. Some people do not seem to know that there was already a law in Illinois about the protection of these babies, and that Obama believed the new bills would have potentially violated Roe v. Wade.
Just today I saw brand new blogs and online notes about how people are trying to spread the word about Obama’s baby-killing tendencies. People believe this because of sites like BornAliveTruth.org that advertise Obama’s votes against those bills in Illinois, but hardly mention the fact that a similar law was already in place. I think this is a good example of how untruths can be spread by the diffusion of information, which is discussed in Trent & Friedenberg's "Political Campaign Communication," and we talked about it class.
For an actual in-depth coverage of this issue, please visit http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html
Just today I saw brand new blogs and online notes about how people are trying to spread the word about Obama’s baby-killing tendencies. People believe this because of sites like BornAliveTruth.org that advertise Obama’s votes against those bills in Illinois, but hardly mention the fact that a similar law was already in place. I think this is a good example of how untruths can be spread by the diffusion of information, which is discussed in Trent & Friedenberg's "Political Campaign Communication," and we talked about it class.
For an actual in-depth coverage of this issue, please visit http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html
Thursday, October 9, 2008
O Little Town of Bethlehem...
McCain spoke to an assembly of about 6,000 at Lehigh University today in Bethlehem, PA. Lehigh County GOP Chairman Bill Platt introduced him, taking swings at Senator Obama anywhere he could, calling him Barack Hussein Obama more than once, creating rage among the audience against Senator Obama.
Platt claimed that Obama refused to wear a flag pin on his lapel (even though he had been wearing one the night before at the debate, and McCain had not worn one in the first Presidential debate), saying that he removed it BECAUSE it was a symbol of patriotism. Now, partisanship aside, how are we supposed to trust anything he says in his speech when he starts out with an obvious, blatant lie?
Then Cindy McCain took to the stage, reiterating a well-known fact that has been said dozens of time by the McCain campaign: "Let me tell you, the day Senator Obama decided to cast a vote not to fund my son when he was serving . . . sent a cold chill through my body, let me tell you. I suggest that Senator Obama change shoes with me for just one day and see what it means to have a loved one serving in the armed forces, and, more importantly, serving in harm's way.” It was weird, but she reminded me a lot of Paris Hilton when she said it on television. Anyway, we all know that Obama voted against this bill…and we also know why! It was because there was no timetable. The public is also familiar with McCain’s voting against a similar bill, but with a timetable, she didn’t mention that one though.
Right now, the American people are looking for the truth, and for reasons to vote for each candidate- not reasons to vote against them. If we cannot trust the candidates (or their campaigns) to come up with credible surrogate speakers, how can we trust the candidates to tell us the truth, or to appoint trustworthy cabinet members when they are in office? I think that this is a prime reason that we NEED the media…because without the fact checkers and the pundits, we would have to fend for ourselves-trying to speculate what is the truth, and what is completely fabricated.
Platt claimed that Obama refused to wear a flag pin on his lapel (even though he had been wearing one the night before at the debate, and McCain had not worn one in the first Presidential debate), saying that he removed it BECAUSE it was a symbol of patriotism. Now, partisanship aside, how are we supposed to trust anything he says in his speech when he starts out with an obvious, blatant lie?
Then Cindy McCain took to the stage, reiterating a well-known fact that has been said dozens of time by the McCain campaign: "Let me tell you, the day Senator Obama decided to cast a vote not to fund my son when he was serving . . . sent a cold chill through my body, let me tell you. I suggest that Senator Obama change shoes with me for just one day and see what it means to have a loved one serving in the armed forces, and, more importantly, serving in harm's way.” It was weird, but she reminded me a lot of Paris Hilton when she said it on television. Anyway, we all know that Obama voted against this bill…and we also know why! It was because there was no timetable. The public is also familiar with McCain’s voting against a similar bill, but with a timetable, she didn’t mention that one though.
Right now, the American people are looking for the truth, and for reasons to vote for each candidate- not reasons to vote against them. If we cannot trust the candidates (or their campaigns) to come up with credible surrogate speakers, how can we trust the candidates to tell us the truth, or to appoint trustworthy cabinet members when they are in office? I think that this is a prime reason that we NEED the media…because without the fact checkers and the pundits, we would have to fend for ourselves-trying to speculate what is the truth, and what is completely fabricated.
Humor Helps
These are a few cartoons I found on cnn.com by Bill Mitchell. I think it is interesting the framework that is put on the CNN website. This cartoon shows George Bush and John McCain as buddies through a White House window. I think that this is emphasizing the notion that McCain is "out of touch." It could also be insinuating that President Bush is McCain's only fan. Whether you are a fan of Obama or McCain cartoons can help you see the candidates from opposite views and positions.
McCain's Homeownership Resurgence Plan
Although my assigned candidate is Barack Obama, I find the issue of failing mortgages and John McCain's Tuesday proposal and his campaign's subsequent elaboration too salient an issue when our classroom discussion is focusing on mass media use in campaigns.
It reads like a good story: the background is economic crisis sparked by exagerated lending terms and homeowners' inability to pay off their mortgages. The action proceeds with government hesitancy over and then approval of the $700b+ bailout package. Then, in the context of an intense political confrontation (Tuesday's debates), John McCain unveils his Homeownership Resurgence Plan, though in its rough form. He mentions the government buying up bad mortgages, a seeming bottom-up strategy to help the economy. The McCain campaign's website now has the plan as its front-page news item, providing the details that weren't presented Tuesday. It allows the government to buy up mortgages and replace them with fixed-rate mortgages that would keep people from defaulting.
From a communicative standpoint, the plan was botched. Uncertainty followed McCain's vague announcement during the debate (see "Critics call McCain housing plan 'half-baked'" at Politico.com), and pundits called it hasty, perplexing, and ambiguous. Even though the campaign's website has provided consistent updates, no wider announcements have been made, increasing the confusion surrounding the proposal.
This would have been a great opportunity for the McCain campaign to call a PRESS CONFERENCE as detailed in the chapter by Trent and Friedenburg. It was a situation that called for special attention immediately following the debate while people were still taken aback that such a serious policy had been so casually presented. Because of the topics newness, a variety of news sources would have been interested in giving McCain publicity. The campaign could have clarified its proposal, strengthened it, and responded to questions.
This was, unfortunately, a missed opportunity by the McCain campaign.
It reads like a good story: the background is economic crisis sparked by exagerated lending terms and homeowners' inability to pay off their mortgages. The action proceeds with government hesitancy over and then approval of the $700b+ bailout package. Then, in the context of an intense political confrontation (Tuesday's debates), John McCain unveils his Homeownership Resurgence Plan, though in its rough form. He mentions the government buying up bad mortgages, a seeming bottom-up strategy to help the economy. The McCain campaign's website now has the plan as its front-page news item, providing the details that weren't presented Tuesday. It allows the government to buy up mortgages and replace them with fixed-rate mortgages that would keep people from defaulting.
From a communicative standpoint, the plan was botched. Uncertainty followed McCain's vague announcement during the debate (see "Critics call McCain housing plan 'half-baked'" at Politico.com), and pundits called it hasty, perplexing, and ambiguous. Even though the campaign's website has provided consistent updates, no wider announcements have been made, increasing the confusion surrounding the proposal.
This would have been a great opportunity for the McCain campaign to call a PRESS CONFERENCE as detailed in the chapter by Trent and Friedenburg. It was a situation that called for special attention immediately following the debate while people were still taken aback that such a serious policy had been so casually presented. Because of the topics newness, a variety of news sources would have been interested in giving McCain publicity. The campaign could have clarified its proposal, strengthened it, and responded to questions.
This was, unfortunately, a missed opportunity by the McCain campaign.
Would the real Cindy McCain please stand up?
Recently on the campaign trail the McCain campaign used Cindy McCain as an attack dog along with Sarah Palin. She brought up the vote on whether to fund the troops or not that was vetoed by President Bush because it included a timetable for withdraw. Cindy McCain went on the attack saying that she was just blown back that Barack Obama would vote against funding our troops on the battlefield. She said that Obama and her should switch shoes for a while so he could understand how a mother of a son who is in Iraq feels about not funding the troops. The funny thing about this whole statement is that her husband voted the same way Obama voted and that was a big "NO" to funding our troops.
Instead of blasting Obama for voting the same way that her husband did even though it wasn't for the same reason, she should be kicking her husband out of the bedroom and making him sleep on the couch! I really don't understand where the McCain campaign is really trying to go with this since both senators voted against this bill. And using Cindy McCain to say that the judgment of Obama is wrong and that her husband's judgment is better. There is one problem with that statement....THEY MADE THE SAME JUDGEMENT! End of story! So Cindy McCain and others out there who like to fabricate the truth I suggest you find a new strategy.
Instead of blasting Obama for voting the same way that her husband did even though it wasn't for the same reason, she should be kicking her husband out of the bedroom and making him sleep on the couch! I really don't understand where the McCain campaign is really trying to go with this since both senators voted against this bill. And using Cindy McCain to say that the judgment of Obama is wrong and that her husband's judgment is better. There is one problem with that statement....THEY MADE THE SAME JUDGEMENT! End of story! So Cindy McCain and others out there who like to fabricate the truth I suggest you find a new strategy.
Presidential Debate
The article I was looking at is for Wed. after the debate took place. McCain defiantely went after Obama in this debate, which is what we talked about in class. I also believe there should be respect coming from both candidates and I felt less respect was given to Obama especially when McCain called Obama "that one" when referring to him. I felt that was uncalled for. I also noticed that McCain still did the blinking thing. Does he wear contacts? I also got annoyed with the "my friend" line. I'm also annoyed that McCain says that he would not telegraph his punshes when it came to war. Well Obama needs to let Americans know what is coming up and how to get Bin Laden. If you talk to most of the people on the streets they want Bin Laden they don't want to fight an endless war that we are supposively winning. I also got a little concerned when McCain said he would do anything for his troops but I have not heard how he is going to help soilder whom come back with PTSD. Mental illness is a serious problem in soilders that come home and many are not helped and they commit suicide. McCain went throught some serious stuff which makes me think not all soilders can cope with war like him and I wish he would realize that.
I liked that this debate had audience members and web users ask the questions but I still would have liked to hear more of how they are going to fix certain issues but the economy is bombarding these canadidates talking mainly about the economy. Another thing I want to talk about what's with all this Maverick business? It makes no sense to me, what is a Maverick anyway?
I also was concerned that McCain said that "My friends, we are not going to be able to provide the same benefits for presant day workers that presant retirees have today" He did not elaborate on this. It seems like generation after generation has to pay for past generations deeds. There were some white lies in the debate by both canidates but three came from McCain two from Obama. I know some mistakes can happen but voters are going to look at this. Overall I felt Obama had the upper hand in this debate. I thought he related to the voters and at the end stayed and talked, took pictures, autographs, and laughing with voters. I was watching the end credits and I was like were is McCain?
I liked that this debate had audience members and web users ask the questions but I still would have liked to hear more of how they are going to fix certain issues but the economy is bombarding these canadidates talking mainly about the economy. Another thing I want to talk about what's with all this Maverick business? It makes no sense to me, what is a Maverick anyway?
I also was concerned that McCain said that "My friends, we are not going to be able to provide the same benefits for presant day workers that presant retirees have today" He did not elaborate on this. It seems like generation after generation has to pay for past generations deeds. There were some white lies in the debate by both canidates but three came from McCain two from Obama. I know some mistakes can happen but voters are going to look at this. Overall I felt Obama had the upper hand in this debate. I thought he related to the voters and at the end stayed and talked, took pictures, autographs, and laughing with voters. I was watching the end credits and I was like were is McCain?
"Well it's no picnic for me either, buddy"
On Barack Obama’s website, there is a part named “BarackTV: The Movement.” I was interested to see what might be found out about the candidate while watching the clip. It begins with talking about how great America is, and how people in this country have stories that cannot be created in other countries. There are many small video clips of Obama speaking to crowds, photographs of Obama’s life, as well as a narrator leading the story on. Barack’s family is intertwined throughout the movie. Barack’s story is very inspirational. He had grandparents who were actively involved in the Great Depression, and World War Two. Barack only met his dad for one month. His mother and Barack would wake up at 4:30 in the morning and learn lessons. When he would complain, his mom would say “well this is no picnic for me either, buddy.” One of his most repeated phrases throughout the movie was “imagine yourself standing in other people’s shoes.”
The clip highlights Obama’s reason for wanting to be president. There were some other politicians interviewed, and they would say “Obama is passionate about the issues he fights for.” He does not just want to be the president to have the status, he wants to work for the American people to improve lives. He mentions that the world needs to be changed, and the only person who can start to change it is you. His core values mentioned include: hard-work, honesty, self-reliance, empathy, respect, kindness, and faith. “Americans can do anything when they put their minds to it.” Obama wants to work on behalf of the next generation, in order to make their lives better. He wants to work for “not just some people, but for all of us.”
The video aims to lead the audience to believe that Obama is the way to change. That he is the way to make America once again the greatest country in the world. With no negative aspects of the movie, the audience may begin to think that Obama is a new and different politician who will be a great leader.
The clip highlights Obama’s reason for wanting to be president. There were some other politicians interviewed, and they would say “Obama is passionate about the issues he fights for.” He does not just want to be the president to have the status, he wants to work for the American people to improve lives. He mentions that the world needs to be changed, and the only person who can start to change it is you. His core values mentioned include: hard-work, honesty, self-reliance, empathy, respect, kindness, and faith. “Americans can do anything when they put their minds to it.” Obama wants to work on behalf of the next generation, in order to make their lives better. He wants to work for “not just some people, but for all of us.”
The video aims to lead the audience to believe that Obama is the way to change. That he is the way to make America once again the greatest country in the world. With no negative aspects of the movie, the audience may begin to think that Obama is a new and different politician who will be a great leader.
527 Reasons to Hate your Opponent
Probably the most well known independent ad campaign in recent history is the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth’s 2004 commercial. The ad disputed John Kerry’s self proclaimed valor in commanding a Navy gunboat. The group also brought attention to his anti-war efforts. This organization had a big impact on the election and definitely contributed to Bush’s reelection.
Independent groups are hoping to have the same effect in this year’s election. Groups for both Obama and McCain are taking aim at the opposition. The California Nurses Association aired a commercial in battleground states showing a picture of John McCain with a woman singing “One Heart Beat Away,” obviously pointing out John McCain’s age. The group was trying to put doubts in voter’s minds about Sarah Palin’s ability to lead the country. Veterans for Freedom has also started an ad campaign accusing Obama of caring more about his campaign than the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Anti-McCain and anti-Obama groups have both spent about 6.6 million, in the last 2 weeks alone. As Election Day gets closer both sides are trying to ensure victory. So far, no one group has seemed to have any effect on the campaign. However, the ads that have come out so far are only the beginning. Many of these groups are looking for wealthy donors to put their ads on more often. The problem I have with these independent groups is that they only spout partisan rhetoric. I wish they would try and put some substance in their ads. Obama and McCain have set a negative tone for this election which is spreading.
Independent groups are hoping to have the same effect in this year’s election. Groups for both Obama and McCain are taking aim at the opposition. The California Nurses Association aired a commercial in battleground states showing a picture of John McCain with a woman singing “One Heart Beat Away,” obviously pointing out John McCain’s age. The group was trying to put doubts in voter’s minds about Sarah Palin’s ability to lead the country. Veterans for Freedom has also started an ad campaign accusing Obama of caring more about his campaign than the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Anti-McCain and anti-Obama groups have both spent about 6.6 million, in the last 2 weeks alone. As Election Day gets closer both sides are trying to ensure victory. So far, no one group has seemed to have any effect on the campaign. However, the ads that have come out so far are only the beginning. Many of these groups are looking for wealthy donors to put their ads on more often. The problem I have with these independent groups is that they only spout partisan rhetoric. I wish they would try and put some substance in their ads. Obama and McCain have set a negative tone for this election which is spreading.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Read the Plan
A recent criticism that I have had of John McCain (and Sentor Obama too for that matter) is that he always talks about his comprehensive economic plan that will create millions of good American jobs, ensure our nation's energy security, get the government's budget and spending practices in order, and bring relief to American consumers but I have not heard the specific details about what he plans to do to get America out of the current economic and financial crisis.
That all changed today when I visited the McCain website and on the main page saw "Jobs for America- Read the Plan." Needless to say I was pleasantly surprised. They broke the McCain Economic Plan down into eight sections: workplace flexibility, relief for families, government reform, supporting small business, cheap and clean energy, better health care, simpler and fairer taxes, and lower barriers to trade. The sections are brief but specific and informative.
A lower corporate tax rate is essential to keeping good jobs in the United States. Under the "Supporting Small Business" section it talks about what McCain plans to do. For example, he will keep the top tax rate at 35%, maintain the 15% rates on dividends and capital gains, and phase-out the Alternative Minimum Tax, cut the corporate tax rate from 35 to 25%, allow a first-year deduction ("expensing") of technology and equipment investments, and establish a permanent tax credit equal to 10% of wages spent on R&D.
Each one of these initiatives is explained briefly in plain English that any American can understand. There are also links to "tell a friend" and to "download, print, and share" the plan. Wow! I know that in a debate format there is limited time to propose a plan and share all the details, but I think McCain should direct people to his website where everything is clearly explained. I was really impressed- go to the McCain website and see if you agree.
That all changed today when I visited the McCain website and on the main page saw "Jobs for America- Read the Plan." Needless to say I was pleasantly surprised. They broke the McCain Economic Plan down into eight sections: workplace flexibility, relief for families, government reform, supporting small business, cheap and clean energy, better health care, simpler and fairer taxes, and lower barriers to trade. The sections are brief but specific and informative.
A lower corporate tax rate is essential to keeping good jobs in the United States. Under the "Supporting Small Business" section it talks about what McCain plans to do. For example, he will keep the top tax rate at 35%, maintain the 15% rates on dividends and capital gains, and phase-out the Alternative Minimum Tax, cut the corporate tax rate from 35 to 25%, allow a first-year deduction ("expensing") of technology and equipment investments, and establish a permanent tax credit equal to 10% of wages spent on R&D.
Each one of these initiatives is explained briefly in plain English that any American can understand. There are also links to "tell a friend" and to "download, print, and share" the plan. Wow! I know that in a debate format there is limited time to propose a plan and share all the details, but I think McCain should direct people to his website where everything is clearly explained. I was really impressed- go to the McCain website and see if you agree.
Aiming TV Ads at Younger Voters
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/08/obama-aims-tv-ads-at-younger-voters/
...this is an interesting site pertaining to ad campaigns......
What the recent news on ad campaigning is this: Obama is increasing his efforts to boost November turnout with the younger voters. It has been reported from MTV networks that Obama has bought some commerical time on three of its networks, including Comedy Central, Spike, and VH1 and could potentially be running his ads as soon as Thursday.
In years past MTV's networks did not accept political advertising but Obama becomes the first presidential campaign to buy time with the network. It is said that with this latest purchase of advertising adds another layer to the multi-layered presidential advertising campaigns in history with it reaching out to all sorts of voters with the "special tailored messages."
Although Obama's campaign considered this a "youth buy" and did not share the duration of the rotation, there were many comments posted about whether or not this could be a good strategy with campaigning or if it was just more money wasted. It was interesting to see the different comments about Obama's ad campaign; one saying that it was a waste of money and Obama sharing his campaign fundraising wealth. Others mentioned that it was telling of a candidate that promised change and post-partisanship.
In one of the readings it talked about the general election campaign and the final efforts. This is one of many final efforts for the candidates to reach out to voters who are still yet undecided. It is the time to take drastic action and do everything possible to help the campaigning process along. I believe that this wasn't just a waste of money but a kind of strategy to get his word out even more to people especially in these last few weeks. Could these ad campaigns be worth it? Very well so.
...this is an interesting site pertaining to ad campaigns......
What the recent news on ad campaigning is this: Obama is increasing his efforts to boost November turnout with the younger voters. It has been reported from MTV networks that Obama has bought some commerical time on three of its networks, including Comedy Central, Spike, and VH1 and could potentially be running his ads as soon as Thursday.
In years past MTV's networks did not accept political advertising but Obama becomes the first presidential campaign to buy time with the network. It is said that with this latest purchase of advertising adds another layer to the multi-layered presidential advertising campaigns in history with it reaching out to all sorts of voters with the "special tailored messages."
Although Obama's campaign considered this a "youth buy" and did not share the duration of the rotation, there were many comments posted about whether or not this could be a good strategy with campaigning or if it was just more money wasted. It was interesting to see the different comments about Obama's ad campaign; one saying that it was a waste of money and Obama sharing his campaign fundraising wealth. Others mentioned that it was telling of a candidate that promised change and post-partisanship.
In one of the readings it talked about the general election campaign and the final efforts. This is one of many final efforts for the candidates to reach out to voters who are still yet undecided. It is the time to take drastic action and do everything possible to help the campaigning process along. I believe that this wasn't just a waste of money but a kind of strategy to get his word out even more to people especially in these last few weeks. Could these ad campaigns be worth it? Very well so.
McCain, Step up to the Plate, Will Ya?
After watching the second presidential debate Tuesday night, I am rather disappointed in McCain's performance. I would not say that he was terrible, but rather mediocre. He needed to be exceptional. His words, I felt, fell on deaf ears. They lacked innovation and real substance. His policies have some unique characteristics and he has some good ideas for our country. Unfortunately, the majority of people are not political scientists nor do they thoroughly research every candidate running for office by taking a look at their websites. We are a very technology oriented society, and we always want to absorb information in the easiest way possible. Maybe it is just easier to listen to the candidates speak then to research them online because heaven forbid that might actually require us to read! I feel like McCain assumes everyone knows the details of all of his plans. However, there is so much information to absorb that I would not be surprised if people involved with his campaign do not even know this much. We do not mind continuously hearing exactly what his healthcare plan entails or how he truly will lead us to energy independency. What we get tired of hearing is how many times he voted against his party or how experienced he is. We know this. We get it. What we need to know are the details, and he needs to present these with confidence. I think maybe he is afraid he will set up his plans to be attacked by Obama if he puts them out there. By not being very specific, he can control the attacking in the debate. However, I really think this is going to cost him the election. He keeps telling the people to trust him, but they will not unless he gives them a true reason to do so.
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/19ba2f1c-c03f-4ac2-8cd5-5cf2edb527cf.htm
http://www.johnmccain.com//Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm
http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/jobsforamerica/
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/19ba2f1c-c03f-4ac2-8cd5-5cf2edb527cf.htm
http://www.johnmccain.com//Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm
http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/jobsforamerica/
McCain's Spending on Advertising
McCain is behind in the polls and his spending on advertising is far below Obama’s. That just doesn’t make sense. The average person would know that to have a chance at gaining their opponent, they should spend more money on advertising.
I have noticed that here in Indiana the majority of ads played on TV are for Obama. His ads are constantly on TV, it doesn’t matter what time of day or station. Depending on the news station or poll that you observe McCain either has a slight lead or both McCain and Obama are tied. In this situation it only makes sense that both candidates would be spending close to the same amount of money on the ads, but that is not the case. Between Sept. 28 and Oct. 4 McCain spent $179,000 compared to $614,000.
Why is there so much difference in the spending between the candidates? One reason may be due to the funds that the candidates have. A second could be due to the desire to when Indiana. This theme is just not found in Indiana but in many other states. The only states that McCain is outspending Obama are in Iowa and Minnesota. Is this a sign that McCain is giving up or that he thinks advertising is not an important tool to gain voters?
I have noticed that here in Indiana the majority of ads played on TV are for Obama. His ads are constantly on TV, it doesn’t matter what time of day or station. Depending on the news station or poll that you observe McCain either has a slight lead or both McCain and Obama are tied. In this situation it only makes sense that both candidates would be spending close to the same amount of money on the ads, but that is not the case. Between Sept. 28 and Oct. 4 McCain spent $179,000 compared to $614,000.
Why is there so much difference in the spending between the candidates? One reason may be due to the funds that the candidates have. A second could be due to the desire to when Indiana. This theme is just not found in Indiana but in many other states. The only states that McCain is outspending Obama are in Iowa and Minnesota. Is this a sign that McCain is giving up or that he thinks advertising is not an important tool to gain voters?
Consummate Maverick, Branded Cattle, or Presidential Sidekick?
What is a Maverick? Senator John McCain has coined himself one from the beginning stages of his campaign. He hopes to use the term to display his experience and track record in politics. Governor Palin also uses this term to describe the Republican Presidential campaign. But what does it actually mean?
One Texas family in particular finds the campaign slogan to be offensive to their family name, Maverick. The history of word leans toward a different connotation. The Maverick family has prided itself on a history of progressive politics and in the 1800s the term “maverick” meant unbranded cattle. The fact that McCain has voted with his party does not support his nickname. As Ms. Maverick stated, “He’s a republican, he’s branded.” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/weekinreview/05schwartz.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
The Democratic Party seems to agree with the Maverick family. After last night’s debate, Senator Biden stated that McCain is “an angry man, lurching from one position to another" and making ugly attacks against Obama instead of offering solutions to a troubled country. Biden also stated that McCain could not possibly be a Maverick when all he has ever been is a sidekick to President Bush. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i7K20RiBJeMQhhTZUST64ABObHjAD93MDGD82
The Results of Presidential Debate #2
The second presidential debate was full of little jabs between the candidates over some key issues, mainly the economy. A big topic going into the campaign was not only who would win, but also that McCain needed to win or to have a very strong showing to try and convince and sway some undecided or independent voters to his side. Since the first debate, the polls have shown Obama's lead rising, and some key swing states leaning toward Obama. Some of these states, including Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio have some major impact on the election, as they have a large amount of electoral votes. Even some usually given Republican states such as Indiana, had become toss-ups. Going into the debate, people expected McCain to take more of an offensive and challenger approach, trying to call out Obama on some issues, and perhaps even rattle the Illinois senator from his normal cool and calm demeanor. Meanwhile, as we kind of discussed in class, many people thought that Obama needed to keep his cool and calm demeanor, as it served him well in the first debate. Also, another key thing for Obama was to discuss the economy often, as it has proven to be one of his strong suits.
The town hall debate set up was interesting, and it is pretty much decided that both candidates did a relatively good job with no major screw ups or flops. But the question is still, Who won? Viewing a number of sources, it has become clear that most people share the same opinion; neither candidate won hands down. However, that statement in itself kind of helped decide who the winner was. The consensus seems to be that Obama won the debate, not because of necessarily what he did, but more so because McCain did not have that game changing moment that he and his campaign needed to change the direction that this race is going in. Politico.Com's Alexander Burns sums it up pretty well: "Obama didn't deliver a knockout punch tonight. But he denied his opponent the chance to re scramble the campaign, and that was enough. The day goes to him. "
The Associated Press, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post all seem to agree in their own ways. Mark Halperin, at at Time Magazine had this to say, "[Obama] played it typically cautious and safe, and thus avoided major blunders, knowing if he commits no errors for the next 30 days, he will be the next president of the United States. " In a CBS poll following the debate, 40 percent of voters said Obama won, while 26 percent said McCain won, and the other 34 percent said the debate was a relative tie. A CNN poll showed that 54 percent said Obama won, while only 30 percent gave it to McCain. However the same CNN poll also showed that 83 percent of those polled felt that McCain was more prepared for the job, so McCain can take some light in that. This final month of the campaign will prove very interesting. Will Obama be able to hold onto his apparent current lead? Or will McCain be able to find that defining and "game changing" moment he needs to turn the voters to his side? Only time will tell.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_el71
The town hall debate set up was interesting, and it is pretty much decided that both candidates did a relatively good job with no major screw ups or flops. But the question is still, Who won? Viewing a number of sources, it has become clear that most people share the same opinion; neither candidate won hands down. However, that statement in itself kind of helped decide who the winner was. The consensus seems to be that Obama won the debate, not because of necessarily what he did, but more so because McCain did not have that game changing moment that he and his campaign needed to change the direction that this race is going in. Politico.Com's Alexander Burns sums it up pretty well: "Obama didn't deliver a knockout punch tonight. But he denied his opponent the chance to re scramble the campaign, and that was enough. The day goes to him. "
The Associated Press, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post all seem to agree in their own ways. Mark Halperin, at at Time Magazine had this to say, "[Obama] played it typically cautious and safe, and thus avoided major blunders, knowing if he commits no errors for the next 30 days, he will be the next president of the United States. " In a CBS poll following the debate, 40 percent of voters said Obama won, while 26 percent said McCain won, and the other 34 percent said the debate was a relative tie. A CNN poll showed that 54 percent said Obama won, while only 30 percent gave it to McCain. However the same CNN poll also showed that 83 percent of those polled felt that McCain was more prepared for the job, so McCain can take some light in that. This final month of the campaign will prove very interesting. Will Obama be able to hold onto his apparent current lead? Or will McCain be able to find that defining and "game changing" moment he needs to turn the voters to his side? Only time will tell.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_el71
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
The Desired Effect of Presidential and Vice Presidential Debates
The 2008 presidential and vice presidential debates have proved that they did have their desired effects as introduced in the textbook. We can see that Obama team has been more successful in doing their job according to the analysis of the poll on The 2008 presidential and vice presidential debates have proved that they did have their desired effects as introduced in the textbook. We can see that Obama team has been more successful in doing their job according to the analysis of the poll on www.electoral-vote.com, in which Obama got 349, while McCain achieved 174 and there are 15 ties. The presidential and vice presidential candidates did create conflict, the essence of drama that attracted a lot of electorate. The presidential and vice presidential candidate debates have reinforced the positions of a candidate’s partisans, which can be vividly seen from the immediate audience’s response shown in the opinion poll line on the video clip of their debate and the general public’s heated discussion about their candidates’ performance in winning the debate or losing the debate. Also, debates increase the voters’ knowledge of issues. In the recent vice presidential debate, both candidates are successful in relating issues to their overall themes. Biden calls for change, while Palin stresses bi-partisan cooperation for the benefit of America. However, Biden’s logical organization of his ideas in responding to Palin’s attack help the public better understand the urgency of some issues such as economic crisis and pollution of western coast of America. The vice presidential debate best illustrates the effect of modifying candidate images in that the electorate has a more positive impression of Biden’s leadership qualities and personal qualities. Biden’s experience and competence are obvious through his calm but forceful attack on his opponent in the speech. Actually, he just impresses us that he could even play the role of a president. Debates also build confidence in U.S. democracy for the electorate can make a more rational decision as to choose the one who will run the whole country in the near future. Debates provide voters with greater exposure to information about the candidates so that they may either reinforce their former opinion or change their opinion of a candidate and find enough reasons to make their final choice., in which Obama got 349, while McCain achieved 174 and there are 15 ties. The presidential and vice presidential candidates did create conflict, the essence of drama that attracted a lot of electorate. The presidential and vice presidential candidate debates have reinforced the positions of a candidate’s partisans, which can be vividly seen from the immediate audience’s response shown in the opinion poll line on the video clip of their debate and the general public’s heated discussion about their candidates’ performance in winning the debate or losing the debate. Also, debates increase the voters’ knowledge of issues. In the recent vice presidential debate, both candidates are successful in relating issues to their overall themes. Biden calls for change, while Palin stresses bi-partisan cooperation for the benefit of America. However, Biden’s logical organization of his ideas in responding to Palin’s attack help the public better understand the urgency of some issues such as economic crisis and pollution of western coast of America. The vice presidential debate best illustrates the effect of modifying candidate images in that the electorate has a more positive impression of Biden’s leadership qualities and personal qualities. Biden’s experience and competence are obvious through his calm but forceful attack on his opponent in the speech. Actually, he just impresses us that he could even play the role of a president. Debates also build confidence in U.S. democracy for the electorate can make a more rational decision as to choose the one who will run the whole country in the near future. Debates provide voters with greater exposure to information about the candidates so that they may either reinforce their former opinion or change their opinion of a candidate and find enough reasons to make their final choice.
Candidates and Their Interpersonal Communication
This being the first time that I have even ever paid any attention to an election, has actually taught me a whole lot. One thing that I have noticed is how the processes work, and i now know how important it would have to be for the candidates to have interpersonal communication with voters. Things under this term involve "the coffee," which is simply having people come and really get to know the issues, and who is the "real" candidate. Another part of this it the internet. The internet is growing, and already plays such a huge role in the elections. It mainly helps voters learn about everything that is going on during the election.
Changes in Politics
I believe politics is a changing game. The people change, the issues change, the situation changes…everything is constantly in motion. One of the big changes we are now seeing is the Decline of Political Parties. We now focus more on the person than on the party they represent…but do we? It seems like at the beginning of the election we were focusing on people rather than parties. But with the economic crisis, I have noticed a shift back to looking at Parties more than at candidates.
From what I can see (I am not expert though), there are two reasons why the economic crisis has helped Obama in the polls: because he has been clearer about his financial plan, and because McCain is a Republican. If we are shifting away from voting for Political Parties, why is it that McCain being Republican has turned into such a negative thing? Obama has been relying on the message that McCain represents the “same old Washington Politics,” while McCain has been trying to portray himself as a “maverick” of Republicans. Is this decline of Political Parties? McCain is trying to distance himself from the current administration to gain votes, while Obama is trying to make him seem like all other Republicans. The polls indicated that Obama is ahead, and that people do not want to see a Republican in office because they want to see some “change”.
Maybe Political Parties play a bigger role than we all think…
From what I can see (I am not expert though), there are two reasons why the economic crisis has helped Obama in the polls: because he has been clearer about his financial plan, and because McCain is a Republican. If we are shifting away from voting for Political Parties, why is it that McCain being Republican has turned into such a negative thing? Obama has been relying on the message that McCain represents the “same old Washington Politics,” while McCain has been trying to portray himself as a “maverick” of Republicans. Is this decline of Political Parties? McCain is trying to distance himself from the current administration to gain votes, while Obama is trying to make him seem like all other Republicans. The polls indicated that Obama is ahead, and that people do not want to see a Republican in office because they want to see some “change”.
Maybe Political Parties play a bigger role than we all think…
Ponytail Guy
I just read an article talking about the potential danger of the town-hall style debate tonight. It talked about how in 1992, a guy with a pony tail asked a question and scolded President George H.W. Bush for running a negative character campaign against Clinton.
"Referring to voters as "symbolically the children of the future president," he asked how voters could expect the candidates 'to meet our needs, the needs in housing and in crime and you name it, as opposed to the wants of your political spin doctors and your political parties. ... Could we cross our hearts? It sounds silly here but could we make a commitment? You know, we're not under oath at this point, but could you make a commitment to the citizens of the U.S. to meet our needs—and we have many—and not yours again?'"
With the recent increase in negative campaigning by Obama and McCain, there is the possibility of a regular "Joe Six-Pack" asking tough questions of the candidates. I do hope someone gets the nerve and the opportunity to put the candidates on the spot. Maye we'll actually get a spontaneous answer that will allow us to learn a little more about the candidates instead of a speech module that they've practiced over and over.
Because in essence, what the pony tail guy said is true. The election should be about us, the people, and our needs, not the candidates and political parties.
"Referring to voters as "symbolically the children of the future president," he asked how voters could expect the candidates 'to meet our needs, the needs in housing and in crime and you name it, as opposed to the wants of your political spin doctors and your political parties. ... Could we cross our hearts? It sounds silly here but could we make a commitment? You know, we're not under oath at this point, but could you make a commitment to the citizens of the U.S. to meet our needs—and we have many—and not yours again?'"
With the recent increase in negative campaigning by Obama and McCain, there is the possibility of a regular "Joe Six-Pack" asking tough questions of the candidates. I do hope someone gets the nerve and the opportunity to put the candidates on the spot. Maye we'll actually get a spontaneous answer that will allow us to learn a little more about the candidates instead of a speech module that they've practiced over and over.
Because in essence, what the pony tail guy said is true. The election should be about us, the people, and our needs, not the candidates and political parties.
Health care advisers show plan diversity
Health care advisers show plan diversity
Senator McCain and Obama have both proposed new health care plans. McCain and Obama have gone about their plans differently. McCain’s advisors are primarily free market advocates and waste hunters, while Obama’s advisors are big name board reform candidates from Capital Hill.
The different staff could be due to the differences in their health care plans. Senator McCain has produced a mix of spending controls and tax fixes, which will expand insurance coverage. On the other hand Obama has a sweeping proposal that will prod the market to cover more people. This will also provide a government backstop for those who can’t afford it.
Many people have a different view on which plan is right for the American people. This could be a key argument in this year’s election. That is why the candidates have put together their advising staffs to help them decide on a plan and the in and outs of the plan.
Senator McCain and Obama have both proposed new health care plans. McCain and Obama have gone about their plans differently. McCain’s advisors are primarily free market advocates and waste hunters, while Obama’s advisors are big name board reform candidates from Capital Hill.
The different staff could be due to the differences in their health care plans. Senator McCain has produced a mix of spending controls and tax fixes, which will expand insurance coverage. On the other hand Obama has a sweeping proposal that will prod the market to cover more people. This will also provide a government backstop for those who can’t afford it.
Many people have a different view on which plan is right for the American people. This could be a key argument in this year’s election. That is why the candidates have put together their advising staffs to help them decide on a plan and the in and outs of the plan.
Barack Obama is coming to town...
Less than a month remains until the dawning of Election Day, and candidates are hitting choice states with real intensity in some “last” attempts to sway voters to their camp. This baby doesn't exactly look won-over.
Tomorrow at 12:15, Barack Obama will be making his 6th pit stop in Indiana to throw what’s being called “A Rally for Change.” Change…hmm. Sound familiar? There is no doubt in my mind that Obama will be throwing out a few different stock speeches in order to reach out Hoosiers: perhaps the economy and the working class will be the two most prominent topics on Obama’s lips tomorrow? We’ll find out. Well, I know I will—I’m skipping class to hear just what exactly he (and his speech writers…) have got to say. (P.S. There’s one seat left in my car, if anyone’s interested in going.)
Stock speeches aside, I’m heading to the rally because frankly, in the thick of the General Election Stage, I crave these expectations just like the rest of you! Speeches, rallies, bumper stickers, baby-kissing--they’re all campaign rituals that we as U.S. citizens demand to be fulfilled. It’s something like a “symbolic” trade off: hug my grandma, promise her health care, throw her a tee shirt, and I’ll guarantee you my vote. I suppose I’m glad that it’s not exactly THAT easy…
If you’re in the mood for “the lighter side of Politics,” check out this collection of politicians kissing babies:
http://community.livejournal.com/ontd_political/942823.html
Here’s a link to learn more about what’s going on with Barack in Indiana without the babies:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/inhome
On the offensive
When looking at Barack Obama's website, I began to notice that all that's being talked about right now is the economy. Obama has two new videos advertised on his homepage, both of which deal with the economy and how it entered the state it's in. When I watched the videos, I noticed they were both very accusatory of John McCain. One of the videos, entitled "Keating Economics: The Making of a Financial Crisis" attacks McCain's past endeavors. Even this far into the campaign, you can still see some of the challenger style strategies at work here. Obama is effectively attacking the opponents record, calling for a change, and delegating harsh attacks. Obama is also calling for a change in the second video on his homepage, which is titled "Same Path". At this point in the election, is it at all possible for the candidates to stop attacking each other or are the attacks going to only get worse from here?
Electoral Votes for today
I was looking at the electoral vote updates for today and it's funny, I remembering looking a few weeks ago and it was mostly reds. Now it is pretty much even. Obama has 349, McCain 174 and there are 15 ties. For the Senate, the Democrats have 58 and the GOP has 42. And for the House the Democrats have 241 and the GOP has 193 with 1 tie. This is really quit interesting. On the map, there are four barely democratic states, and only one barely republican state. There are 15 strong Democratic states, and 16 strong Republican states. 7 weak Democratic states, and 5 weak republican states. North Carolina is the only exactly tied state present.
In regards to national tracking polls, Obama leads in 8 of them.
Battleground- +7
CNN- +8
Diageo- +6
Gallup- +8
NYT/CBS- +3
Rasmussen- +8
Research 2000- +8
WSJ/NBC- +6
WaPo/ABC- +6
The average present is a 6.7 point lead.
In regards to national tracking polls, Obama leads in 8 of them.
Battleground- +7
CNN- +8
Diageo- +6
Gallup- +8
NYT/CBS- +3
Rasmussen- +8
Research 2000- +8
WSJ/NBC- +6
WaPo/ABC- +6
The average present is a 6.7 point lead.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Interpersonal communication between candidates and voters
Interpersonal communication is the way candidates connect with voters on an emotional, human level. Face-to-face, one-on-one contact initiates a cascade of barely perceptible and even unconscious nonverbal cues, which contain a rich lode of information that influences perceptions.
For quite some time now, I've been noticing some serious gaps in Barack Obama's communication skills. It didn't seem possible just a few short months ago, but it's started to look like Obama has a "tin ear" when it comes to interpersonal communication. It's the little things that have been bringing him down: the flubbed diner and small-town shop visits, snapping at reporters while on vacation or eating breakfast, the lame attempts at flattery and flirtations with humble voters that Obama confuses with small talk. The everyday patter that is the heart of a campaign as well as of life makes him ill at ease and unable to be spontaneous. Worse, he seems to be unaware of how this skills deficit impacts him and his campaign.
when Hilary was running for president i really like how she communcated and interacted with the people. She cames across as warm and generous, seeming always to have time for another hug or photo or to listen to another story.
For quite some time now, I've been noticing some serious gaps in Barack Obama's communication skills. It didn't seem possible just a few short months ago, but it's started to look like Obama has a "tin ear" when it comes to interpersonal communication. It's the little things that have been bringing him down: the flubbed diner and small-town shop visits, snapping at reporters while on vacation or eating breakfast, the lame attempts at flattery and flirtations with humble voters that Obama confuses with small talk. The everyday patter that is the heart of a campaign as well as of life makes him ill at ease and unable to be spontaneous. Worse, he seems to be unaware of how this skills deficit impacts him and his campaign.
when Hilary was running for president i really like how she communcated and interacted with the people. She cames across as warm and generous, seeming always to have time for another hug or photo or to listen to another story.
Elitist vs Populist Obama... wtf?
I was having a discussion today (with my special someone) about the elitist vs populist issue that came up in the primaries. According to the McCain campaign, Obama is too much of an elitist to connect with the public, and apparently being an elitist is a negative thing. McCain, on the other hand, prides himself on his populist views. Being a communication major, I have encountered this model before in terms of media applications.
Basically, the populist side of the model argues that the media should provide the people what they want, whether that be more episodes of Cops, Flavor of Love, or any other crap that may be produced. If it sells, then it should sold.
The elitist side of the model argues that the media should be used to better the public, encourage intellectual growth, and make the world a better place. The public broadcast channels such as PBS and NPR are perfect examples of elitist organizations.
My issue is with the idea that being an elitist is a bad thing... how is wanting to promote a positive change and better the world a bad thing? Obama was docked cool points and voter ratings for such a thing. In the primary stage, candidates are trying to mold their image, and even still the brand of "too good for the average Joe-six-pack" has marred Obama's reputation.
What do you guys think being an elitist means?
Basically, the populist side of the model argues that the media should provide the people what they want, whether that be more episodes of Cops, Flavor of Love, or any other crap that may be produced. If it sells, then it should sold.
The elitist side of the model argues that the media should be used to better the public, encourage intellectual growth, and make the world a better place. The public broadcast channels such as PBS and NPR are perfect examples of elitist organizations.
My issue is with the idea that being an elitist is a bad thing... how is wanting to promote a positive change and better the world a bad thing? Obama was docked cool points and voter ratings for such a thing. In the primary stage, candidates are trying to mold their image, and even still the brand of "too good for the average Joe-six-pack" has marred Obama's reputation.
What do you guys think being an elitist means?
Predictions for the Next Debate
What can we expect from the presidential debate tomorrow night? As Obama surges even more in the polls than before the first debate, taking as much as a seven point lead in some states over McCain, I think both candidate's strategies will remain similar but more excessive. According to Patricia Murphy's predictions, the editor and founder of citizenjanepolitics.com, McCain's campaign is really hurting because his support from female voters has drastically dropped since the beginning of the economic crisis, and he needs to reappeal to them. She says that women are the majority of voters, and if McCain can win their support, he will win the election. Some ways she lists to accomplish this include: relating his proposals to women's lives, getting real, disclosing who his Secretary of Treasury will be, and blaming President Bush a little. I agree with Murphy that McCain needs to be more specific when he uses jargon like eliminating "pork barrel" spending by giving examples of the positive effect this would actually have on the economy. He should consider eliminating phrases like, "Drill, baby, drill," and get to the point about how offshore drilling would actually help. Also, McCain and Palin need to listen to not only women but all voters so that voters know they care about the most important issues to them. Next, Murphy thinks McCain should name who will be his Secretary of Treasury now in order to ensure voters that even though he has openly admitted he does not understand the economy quite like he should, someone will be behind his financial policies who does. Finally, she believes McCain should consider strongly disagreeing with President Bush and maybe even blaming him for our economic crisis because although McCain has taken many stands against him in the past, he never has on an economic issue. Also, since the Obama-Biden campaign keeps making comparisons between McCain and President Bush and saying the next four years will like the last eight if he is elected, McCain really needs to distance himself from the President even more so.
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/06/pmurphy_1006/#more-1400
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/06/pmurphy_1006/#more-1400
Heels on; gloves off!
Governor Palin claimed on both Saturday and Sunday that Barack Obama is "palling around with terrorists" and that he doesn't see the United States the same way that Americans see it -- in other words, he is un-American. Here's the link to a couple of her speeches about this:
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=10034385&ch=4226716&src=news
Look for "Palin renews Obama Attack" and "Palin criticizes Obama's terrorist connection"
What is at issue is Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers, who founded Weather Underground, a violent group during the Vietnam era. Both Obama and Ayers are from Chicago, and in the early 1990's, Bill Ayers held a meet-the-candidate event for Obama in his living room.
This is a new and vicious strategy on the part of the McCain campaign. According to Palin, "The heels are on, the gloves are off."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081005/ap_on_el_pr/palin_recharged;_ylt=AnGDgBcacQFb1CGyeKZTNwmyFz4D
The Associated Press, however, released an analysis yesterday, saying that, "No evidence shows they were "pals" or even close when they worked on community boards years ago and Ayers hosted a political event for Obama early in his career."
These attacks made by Palin have been criticized as being racially tinged. This is plausible, and I think the reason why is well described by the AP: "The fact is that when racism creeps into the discussion, it serves a purpose for McCain. As the fallout from Wright's sermons showed earlier this year, forcing Obama to abandon issues to talk about race leads to unresolved arguments about America's promise to treat all people equally."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081005/ap_on_el_pr/palin_s_words_analysis;_ylt=ArKvWt0X4oc2zLxwGWLXJ9th24cA
How big of an issue will race be in the next month? Are people taking Sarah Palin's accusations seriously or not?
One thing is sure: not all conservatives are happy to see this turn of events by the McCain campaign. Some believe it is entirely appropriate to judge a candidate by his past associations like this; others claim it's an exaggeration and that McCain appears desparate by doing this. He is at least hoping that it will help him to secure the win before the end of the general election season.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14324.html
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=10034385&ch=4226716&src=news
Look for "Palin renews Obama Attack" and "Palin criticizes Obama's terrorist connection"
What is at issue is Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers, who founded Weather Underground, a violent group during the Vietnam era. Both Obama and Ayers are from Chicago, and in the early 1990's, Bill Ayers held a meet-the-candidate event for Obama in his living room.
This is a new and vicious strategy on the part of the McCain campaign. According to Palin, "The heels are on, the gloves are off."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081005/ap_on_el_pr/palin_recharged;_ylt=AnGDgBcacQFb1CGyeKZTNwmyFz4D
The Associated Press, however, released an analysis yesterday, saying that, "No evidence shows they were "pals" or even close when they worked on community boards years ago and Ayers hosted a political event for Obama early in his career."
These attacks made by Palin have been criticized as being racially tinged. This is plausible, and I think the reason why is well described by the AP: "The fact is that when racism creeps into the discussion, it serves a purpose for McCain. As the fallout from Wright's sermons showed earlier this year, forcing Obama to abandon issues to talk about race leads to unresolved arguments about America's promise to treat all people equally."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081005/ap_on_el_pr/palin_s_words_analysis;_ylt=ArKvWt0X4oc2zLxwGWLXJ9th24cA
How big of an issue will race be in the next month? Are people taking Sarah Palin's accusations seriously or not?
One thing is sure: not all conservatives are happy to see this turn of events by the McCain campaign. Some believe it is entirely appropriate to judge a candidate by his past associations like this; others claim it's an exaggeration and that McCain appears desparate by doing this. He is at least hoping that it will help him to secure the win before the end of the general election season.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14324.html
Michigan Leaning Toward Obama
CNN conducted a recent poll to see where each candidate is standing in the eyes of America. The results were as expected; however Michigan jumped from a toss up state to an Obama state. CNN estimates if the election was tomorrow, Obama would win with 240 electoral votes to McCain's 200. There would still be 98 electoral votes up for grab, and Obama would only require 30 to secure a victory. Michigan has voted in favor of the Democratic presidential candidate in the past four elections. Obama's take over of Michigan is anticipated to be related to his economic plan. Another poll indicates that Michigan favors the Obama economic plan opposed to McCains; and the Michigan automotive industry has been heavily affected by the recent economic crisis.
The economy is one of the leading, if not the leading, issues in the presidential election today. Obama has done a better job of portraying his fiscal plans than McCain. In the last presidential debate, McCain danced around every economic question by responding with criticism to Obama's plan. At least Obama stated his position and gave support to his plan. It is evident that Michigan and other Americans agree with that statement based on the results of recent polls.
The economy is one of the leading, if not the leading, issues in the presidential election today. Obama has done a better job of portraying his fiscal plans than McCain. In the last presidential debate, McCain danced around every economic question by responding with criticism to Obama's plan. At least Obama stated his position and gave support to his plan. It is evident that Michigan and other Americans agree with that statement based on the results of recent polls.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Obama Wins the Day
John McCain is behind Barack Obama in preparations for the upcoming debate. McCain has been sitting back while Obama speaks at large, heavily media covered rallies in "key swing states."
The McCain camp has been planning a new offensive against Obama, which targets his "associations" in Chicago. Already, however, the Democrats have released a quick counter attack in the form of a TV add that accuses McCain of distracting voters from the economic crisis and being "erratic" in the bailout agreements.
Democrats also say that because Obama's associations are being attacked, this will label the associations of both McCain and Palin as "fair game."
The bailout has seemed to have a negative effect on the McCain campaign as well. However, the bailout has appeared to have the opposite effect for Sen. Obama. Polls take since the bailout negotiations have shown large leads for Obama in the swing states.
McCain needs to step it up within the few remaining weeks if he wants to win this election.
The McCain camp has been planning a new offensive against Obama, which targets his "associations" in Chicago. Already, however, the Democrats have released a quick counter attack in the form of a TV add that accuses McCain of distracting voters from the economic crisis and being "erratic" in the bailout agreements.
Democrats also say that because Obama's associations are being attacked, this will label the associations of both McCain and Palin as "fair game."
The bailout has seemed to have a negative effect on the McCain campaign as well. However, the bailout has appeared to have the opposite effect for Sen. Obama. Polls take since the bailout negotiations have shown large leads for Obama in the swing states.
McCain needs to step it up within the few remaining weeks if he wants to win this election.
Obama's Take on Job Loss
September's report of job loss is the ninth straight month of losses. Just for the month of September 159,000 jobs were eliminated, leaving many families unable to pay their bills (including mortgages). This the country's economic crisis, the presidential candidates not only have to focus on backing the banks, but also creating jobs giving tax breaks. Senator Obama released a statement this past week stating:
"...this country can't afford Senator McCain's plan to give America four more years of the same policies that have devastated our middle-class and our economy for the last eight. Instead of Senator McCain's plan to give tax breaks to CEO's and companies that shi jobs overseas, I will rebuild the middle-class and create millions of new jobs by investing in infrastructure and renewable energy that will reduce our dependence on oil from the Middle East..."
So this leads to my question. Which policy is better for our hurting economy? Do we trust Obama's rebuilding of the infrastructure and tax cuts to the middle-class to ease the pain of our job cuts? Or, is McCain's tax cuts to corporations to decrease outsourcing and keep jobs in United States? The choice is ours, to rebuild from the bottom up or do we benefit the top and hope to feel the trickle down effects later.
Post Debate Attacks
After getting a brief chance to watch a few clips from the first presidential debate, I now realize how much they do attack each others outlooks and intentions. While watching these clips it seemed every time one or the other commented on a subject, the other candidate didn't hesitate at the chance to attack the other. I found it funny when the day after the debate a clip of Obama that was slightly altered to make him sound bad. It was when McCain would discuss a subject and Obama would say "Senator John McCain is absolutely right". But the people who made this clip didn't let the entire answer of Obama's be heard. Besides this shows how both candidates can be right about something but just have different ways on approaching it and solving it. This just shows although media is a great thing in today's political campaigns and issues, but it also can be altered for other peoples best interest. An example of this clip I watched is on youtube and just search "McCain is right".
I am now interested in what the media has to present after the economic bailout plan was passed. We will see soon.
I am now interested in what the media has to present after the economic bailout plan was passed. We will see soon.
Palin and Biden Clash in Debate
Did Palin help the McCain campaign or did she hurt it during the debate? Did Biden do a little bit too much bashing on the McCain campaign and Bush administration or was he just trying to prove a point? These questions were all answered in the newspaper that I read. It was mentioned several times that Palin did not answer a question directly. Palin said in reply to this, "I may not answer the questions the way that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people and let 'em know my track record also."
Another thing that was pointed out was how Palin does not seem to know all the issues. She would hesitate to answer the issue or she would not answer them at all. Palin even jokingly said that I have only been doing this for five weeks, and Biden has been in the government for three decades.
Which would I feel more comfortable running this country? I can honestly say I do not know. We have the candidate that has been in the government system for several decades with a running mate that has only been in the system for a little while. Then you have the candidate that does not have a lot of experience in the political system, but has a running mate that has been in the system for a few decades. I am not sure which would be the best combination. I am looking forward to watching some more of the debates that way I get a better understanding of who is going to work best for our country.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122296343189798679.html
Another thing that was pointed out was how Palin does not seem to know all the issues. She would hesitate to answer the issue or she would not answer them at all. Palin even jokingly said that I have only been doing this for five weeks, and Biden has been in the government for three decades.
Which would I feel more comfortable running this country? I can honestly say I do not know. We have the candidate that has been in the government system for several decades with a running mate that has only been in the system for a little while. Then you have the candidate that does not have a lot of experience in the political system, but has a running mate that has been in the system for a few decades. I am not sure which would be the best combination. I am looking forward to watching some more of the debates that way I get a better understanding of who is going to work best for our country.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122296343189798679.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
