Obama pulling Away too far?

Lately, several news stories have focused on polls from various states that would lead to the conclusion that Barack Obama is pulling away from John McCain. Some have even said that they do not believe that McCain will have the momentum to catch up and even some republicans seem pessimistic. However, it is also important to note that John McCain is known for persevering, especially through tough times both militarily and politically. It is also important to keep in mind that polls do not always accurately represent the feelings of the entire electorate and surprises could still be in store.

Another issue that keeps McCain supporters somewhat optimistic is the strides that are being made in Washington to aid in the financial crisis. Many of the horse race polls are being based on who the electorate feels can best lead them through the crisis on Wall Street and hopefully with some progress being made, other issues that are more favorable to McCain will come to the forefront. From several news articles, it seems that McCain and his team have decided that his new strategy will be to aggressively question Obama’s associations and questioning who he really is. These personal attacks might be able to make serious distinctions between the candidates but harsh attacks do not go over well with independent voters and others who want everyone to work together.

The remaining days until the election are sure to be even more intense then they have been thus far. It will be very interesting to see how the candidates do in the remaining two presidential debates and what other kinds of new strategies and tactics they can employ. It seems that the race will be neck and neck until the end.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081004/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_next_chapter

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/03/AR2008100303738.html

Health Care

In the recent memorandum sent out by Obama and his campaign officials, Obama lists the five distinct pitfalls in McCain’s health plan. He begins by pointing out that the extra $5,000 that McCain promises to families in order to help them pay for their insurance is not actually a benefit at all. Because it is said the average American will have to pay $12,000 for their benefits which puts them in a $7,000 hole. And, the extra $5,000, while it sounds good, is said to come from taxes that will be paid by a tax on insurance benefits, which Obama believes will effectively eliminate healthcare coverage for 20 million people. He also believes that it will make it harder for people to get services from cancer screenings to vaccines, as well as failing to address rising health care costs and the rising group of uninsured Americans.

According to fact checkers inside the article, Obama’s attacks are completely wrong. It is said that most American families will not come out in the hole, but will actually end up saving money, at least for the next 10 years. The plan not only helps save Americans money, but it would increase after tax income over middle class Americans while decreasing after tax income to upper class families. While Obama attacks McCain for wanting to do a marginal change in health care, Obama continues to flaunt Universal Health Care for everyone. Which is a more radical change? I think the answer is obvious. I know mud-slinging continues to be a part of every election, but when Obama is planning on completely redoing every aspect of health care, I don’t believe he needs to be calling McCain’s health care plan radical. Health care has gotten out of control and does need a change somewhere, but I just hope that change doesn’t cause a drastic drop in the health care capabilities of this country. We cannot lose the incentive for our doctors and pharmaceutical companies to keep having breakthroughs. Without breakthroughs we would not have the health capabilities we have today, which has seen a great increase in the average life expectancy.

Facts are Secondary

During the general election stage of a political campaign, candidates are given the opportunity to provide information to the public. But what does the public do when both candidates operate on different realities?

During the vice presidential debate, there were several instances of each candidate, in one way or another, saying, "that's not true," in rebuttal. So who are we supposed to believe? Immediately after watching the debates, I took Joe Biden's word over Palin's on several disagreements simply due to the thorough responses that Senator Biden had to Palin's accusations. But then I looked at factcheck.org.

It is a shame that this service is not widely used by the general public. It is deeply informative and well researched. Not only that, but entirely non-partisan. The factcheck page for the vice presidential debate is an interesting one. The candidates were both incredibly inaccurate and downright false on several of their comments. So how does the general election stage of a campaign legitimize the political system at all if our main source of information is false over 50% of the time? How can we claim the political system works if people vote using the trust built from false information?

To give a few examples, during the veep debates, Palin said outright that millions of small businesses would be affected by tax increases from Obama's administration. That number is only a few hundred thousand. Biden claimed that a comment from Palin about how he would sell clean coal to China was taken out of context. However, the context was fairly close to his actual comment, and there is still some disagreement as to what Biden originally meant. The misinformation available during the debate is startling.

When we think about challenger strategies in regards to offering misinformation, I can see no real correlation. The only one that comes close is attacking the record, but if the attacks are based on falsehood, then what strategies are you really using?

Sorry, are they strategies or tactics?

Who won the debate? Was it Palin or Biden?

Last night, kicked off the first Vice Presidential Debate of this election. In the predebate analysis, it was said that Biden wouldn't try to attack at Palin because he would be considered sexist and if he was too soft he would be patronizing. The question was how should Palin be treated since she struggled to answer questions her interview with Katy Couric? Instead of going after Palin, herself, Biden ended up attacking John McCain instead.

"Two quick polls indicated that Biden fared better in viewers' minds than Palin in the debate."


"A CBS News/Knowledge Networks Poll found that 46 per cent of uncommitted voters who watched the debate thought Biden won, with 21 per cent siding with Palin."

"A CNN poll found respondents judging Biden the winner by a margin of 51 per cent to 36 per cent but calling Palin more likable by 54 per cent to Biden's 36 per cent."

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5ixKegsamNPvLHNLTYDS28Mdgs0Ig

It may not look like Palin won the debate through numbers, but it seems like she showed more confidence and didn't struggle to respond to questions.

Palin Not a “Moose in the Headlights” during Vice Presidential Debate

In the aftermath of the Katie Couric interviews, many expected Vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin to flounder in the debate. Prior to the interview Palin had been kept away from speaking in public. It appeared as though the interview seemed to exemplify what critics have been saying all along, that Palin lacked experience and knowledge regarding foreign affairs and even domestic policies. She cited that her foreign policy credentials came from Alaska bordering Canada and Russia. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nokTjEdaUGg Her inability to even answer basic questions regarding very crucial issues did not uphold the campaign slogan, “A Proven Maverick” that McCain and Palin are trying to create. It only demonstrated further that she may not have been the most experienced choice.

However, in Thursday night’s debate Palin seemed to have changed her image and improved her knowledge of foreign issues. Throughout the debate she demonstrated confidence in her answers, specifically when asked about Afghanistan. Anyone who had seen the Couric interview was cringing as to what her response might have been when asked to discuss the Middle East. Palin proved them, including myself, wrong. She was able to effectively communicate why McCain’s “counterinsurgency strategy” would be successful. Palin was even able to out answer Democratic nominee Joe Biden who has thirty five years experience. With the election a month away, Sarah Palin’s new media image may prove too much for Obama and Biden to overcome.

Defense Secretary Gates to remain if Obama Wins the White House?

On Thursday, one of Barack Obama's senior advisers said that Obama may consider Defense Secretary Robert Gates staying in the Pentagon if Obama were to win the White House. The advisor, Richard Danzig, told reporters that Gates possessed qualities that "an Obama administration would value." Danzig, who's past experiences include serving as the Navy secretary in President Clinton's administration, emphasized Gates's "pragmatic" approach and persistence and "advocacy" in closing Guantanamo Bay for terror suspects, in noting that he felt that he was a good defense secretary. Although, according to Danzig, he has not directly discussed possible candidates with Obama, he adds that "He would be an even better one (defense secretary) in an Obama administration.
I think this could prove valuable, as Gates, if nominated, could bring some valuable experience to the table. However often criticized the Bush administration has been, having people with valuable experience especially in positions as critical as Defense Secretary, I think would prove of immense value to either candidate.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iNxTApa2sQRu0Xx99P3jt2bEXw7gD93IKAB00

McCain pulls out of Michigan

John McCain is pulling out of Michigan, according to two Republicans, with only a month away of Election Day. Instead of campaigning in Michigan, he will send more forces to Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida. This is probably a good move for McCain, since the Republicans saw Michigan as a long shot. But there is always the possibility that he could still pull out a victory in Michigan at the last minute. Was it really worth giving everything up that the McCain campaign has worked so hard for?

Some might say it was well done, so Republicans could focus on states like Ohio and Florida that are on the boarder line this year. The reason for this is due to the last elections results. Bush won Ohio and Florida and the Republicans hope to continue winning these states.

Is Obama’s campaign rejoicing now that the Republicans have left the race in Michigan? I would say yes they are, because this would mean an easier win in Michigan. The batter for the White House is one state at a time, and from the looks of it the Democrats are pulling ahead of this day to day battle.

Who do you want to step in?

The news is calling tonight's debate one of or possibly the hottest political event of the year. Why is this? Usually the main event is the Presidential debate; I have one guess, Sarah Palin. Gov. Palin seems to be getting most of the media's attention. Most are watching to see what she has to offer during the debate tonight. Why people are not paying more attention to Biden is beyond me. I think most know that he has the ability to be Vice President and his is able to hold his own during the debate. It seems as if the jury is still out on Gov. Palin.

The polls that came out on Wednesday from the Pew Research Center show that 37% of Americans say Palin is qualified to be president and 63% say Biden is qualified. This is a big factor for tonight. They each need to prove how qualified they are to step in if needed, they also need to show their support for their running mate, and they need to show their knowledge and views on key issues. The USA Today reports that "nine vice presidents have succeeded to the presidency because of the death or resignation of their political patron." Who will be the most qualified and prepared for the postion as Vice President and ready to step into the lead position if needed? This is what we hope to find out tonight.

John McCain: Putting His Country First...

John McCain seems to feel that it is important to defend his recent actions of first opting not to attend the first Presidential debate. He first decided to put his campaign on hold the week of the debate scheduled on September 27, 2008. He also decided not to participate and urged Obama to put the debate aside to focus on the Bailout Plan. To McCain’s dismay Obama refused and made it clear that he had every intention of attending the debate on Friday. Some people may view McCain’s recent decision as being brash and not well thought out. It was even mentioned by one of McCain’s advisors that he had a habit of acting off of instinct. Obviously this could be looked upon negatively. However, McCain’s website features an entry in which McCain speaks on his recent actions.
McCain goes on to explain his involvement in the Bailout by speaking of how he didn’t hesitate to drop everything and unify with republicans and democrats to come to a solution in this time of crisis. He gives off the impression that the financial crisis is so dire that it was more than reasonable for him to put his campaign on hold to get the bill for the Bailout passed as soon as possible. He noted that many on both sides are exploiting the financial crisis for their own personal interest. McCain preaches that in times of crisis such as these, people show there true colors and you can see what they are really made of. While McCain goes on to mention “there are those on both sides of this debate who act on principle”, his words imply that unlike Obama, McCain did the right thing by rushing to the aid of his country thus putting his personal interests [his campaign] aside. Furthermore, at the end of one of his new ads in which Obama, Clinton and other democrats for sitting back and not regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac thus doing little to prevent this financial crisis, the last words that come across the screen are “Country First”. McCain is justifying his actions by stating that he was simply putting his country first.

VP Moderator Trouble

With the vice presidential debate just hours away, there is some controversy over the choice to moderate the debate. Gwen Ifill, from the PBS program, “The News Hour with Jim Lehrer,” is being accused of a Democratic bias. Gwen Ifill is writing a book about black politicians, featuring Obama, who have benefited from the Civil Rights struggle. Some believe this accusation could benefit Palin in the debate. People are going to be analyzing not only the candidate’s answer, but the moderator’s question. Any sign of bias towards the Obama campaign and the Republicans will immediately let it be known.

Personally, I am not worried about Gwen Ifill’s possible failure to be objective. The commission on Presidential Debates knew about Ifill’s book before she was chosen to be a moderator. Her track record, in political reporting, obviously spoke for itself when moderators were being considered. I don’t think the McCain campaign should worry about Democratic bias, until it actually happens.

Commercials- Quick Comment

All commercials before the debate for Obama as well as McCain were of the candidate sitting or standing, around some sort of background, showing their patriotism with flags and what not. The commercials content consisted of a vague idea of something the candidate stood for, something they believed in. At the end of the commercials each candidate would say they themselves approved this message. After the debate I noticed more commercials than before. But these commercials were different. Each candidate would pick a topic that the opposing spoke of during the debate and that they didn't agree with. They would emphasize the points that are not at all beneficial to Americans. The commercials did not necessarily have Obama or McCain in them either or them speaking. And then at the end of the commercials most of the time now it says this commercial approved by the republican or the democratic party. I've noticed that most of the McCain's commercials now are being approved by the republican party, but Obama still is approving his own commercials. I just found this interesting.

The Debate Over the Debate

There's controversy about tonight's VP debate. Gwen Ifill, the PBS journalist who will be moderating the debate, is writing and selling a book to be released in January, the day the president is inaugurated. The book is called, "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama," and many people are concerned that this gives the appearance of impropriety. The strongest argument against her is that she stands to profit financially if Barack Obama is sworn in as president on January 20.

Sarah Palin said she is not going to let this be a concern. In fact, she said, "It is motivating to me, to hear Gwen's comments there, because, again, that will make us work that much harder and that provides even more fairness and objectivity and choices for the voters on November 4 if we try that much harder." John McCain said that although she wrote a book that is favorable to Obama, he still thinks that she will do a totally objective job because she is a highly respected professional. Gwen Ifill says, "The proof is in the pudding. They can watch the debate tomorrow night and make their own decisions about whether or not I've done my job." And America will be watching!!

Personally, I think that this can only help Pailn. Since the effects of the debate often lag behind the debate itself, many people do not reach a final judgement until the talk about it with others and observe the media reaction. Gwen Ifill's actions/questions directed at Palin are going to be scrutinized, and the media will be all over her if she shows favoritism.

Just a side note... One of the key predebate strategies is to create low public expectations of a candidate's performance. The media has helped to do just that! Sarah Palin has participated in many debates before and I think will do just fine but the McCain campaign is not doing much to combat the hype because when she does debate well tonight, it will appear as a major victory.

Low Expections For Palin

As mentioned in Trent & Friedenberg's "Political Campaign Communication," low public speaking and debating expectations for a candidate can actually benefit them. When the expectation of a candidate is low, it is easier for them to do better than expected. When the expectations are extremely high it is hard for a candidate to meet expectations. Could we see this come in to play in the vice presidential debate tomorrow? Many of us don't know much about Joe Biden, but we do know he has to be a better speaker than Palin has proved to be so far, especially after her last interview with Katie Couric.

We could possibly see a slight turn around from the way people are talking about Palin now. All Palin has to do is prove herself to be better at it than people will expect her to be. According to an article "Palin Faces Defining Moment" on CBSNew.com, "Palin is in the midst of three days of intense debate preparation with McCain aides at the Arizona senator's Sedona ranch." Will this "intense" training be enough?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/30/politics/main4490492.shtml

Bailout Plan: A Go For Now

The Senate has passed the bailout bill. Both Senator John McCain and Senator Barack Obama were present for the vote. Senator Obama spoke on the Senate House today, saying “this is not just a Wall Street crisis – it’s an American crisis, and it’s the American economy that needs this rescue plan.” There have been some changes made to the bill since it failed to be passed in Congress on Monday night. Some examples are: more than $100 billion in popular tax breaks, and it gives some aid to rural schools. The 74-25 win shows somewhat of a bipartisan collective effort to get America out of the crisis it finds itself in. The next step is a vote in the House on Friday.

As we heard in the debate on Friday evening, Obama is looking to bring change to our economy. The economy will effect, and does affect, every one of us. The next president will have a direct influence on our life. With the next presidential debate coming up, Americans should be researching both McCain and Obama. We will then be equipped to choose who we want to elect.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14190.html

"Put Out That Fire"

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/01/obama_urges_senate_to_pass_res.html

While looking for the latest news with Obama and McCain- the above article caught my attention. Today, Obama conveyed a defense of the $700 billion Wall Street rescue plan that was to be voted on tonight. He was petitioning memebers from both parties who were leery of the plan to step up and take action, doing what is right for the country. Obama stated that the path leading out of the financial crisis will be rough and that there was no real separation between Wall Street and Main Street. He strongly pointed out that America is traveling on that road and will rise or fall as one.

Both Obama and McCain left the campaign trail today to vote for the massive rescue package that is coming up tonight. It is said that the measure still has opposition but with both parties backing it, it is expected to pass the Senate easily.

Obama's speech reiterized the greed and deregulatory zeal that brought this nation to where it is today. However, he made it clear that this wasn't the time to argue how exactly the crisis turned for the worse but instead to step up and work together to turn it back around.

McCain is going to spend money in IN

Today I heard on the news, radio and an email that was sent to me that the Republicans are actually getting scared of losing the state of Indiana. The McCain campaign decided to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to air television ads here in Indiana. Indiana has been a state that has not voted Democratic for president for more than four decades. Polls show here in Indiana that the race is heating up and Obama has a slight lead. The Republican party say they are not worried but why else would they just now have commercials aired and think about McCain coming to Indiana when he did not think to visit this state earlier. Barack and now Joe Biden have been actively campaigning here in Indiana and actually talking to Hoosiers about the challeges they face on a day to day baisis. I found all this to be interesting.
I think if McCain did come to Indiana he would get support but Obama has been all over this state and has already aired many commercials. It might be too late for McCain.

Candidates first debate poll

This is a little late but I was going to post it yesterday but didn't have the time too. I found this article very interesting because it shows Obama up in the polls after the debate. The Gallup Poll picked Obama over McCain when asked which candidate offers the best proposals for this ccountry's problems. Obama did 52%-35% and McCain did 46%-34%. Obama also had a positive rating versus McCain after the debate was seen. "Four national polls showed Obama with leads of 5 to 8 percentage points." The debate offered people a sense of being more comfortable with Obama he does have a strange name and many don't really know him. The public finally got to see Obama for themselves. The debate had a positive impact for Obama. Many feel Obama can fix economic woes more so than McCain. Women said Obama did a better job in the debate versus McCain, men were more divided, and independents said Obama did better. People are starting to warm up to Obama.

Stacking the Deck: Moderator for VP Debate Pens Pro-Obama Book

"Questions are being raised about PBS anchor Gwen Ifill's objectivity after news surfaced that she is releasing a new book promoting Barack Obama and other black politicians who have benefited from the civil rights struggle.

Ifill is moderating Thursday night's vice-presidential debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin. Her book, "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama," is due to be released about the same time the next president takes the oath of office.

In her book, Ifill contends that the black political structure of the civil rights movement has cleared the way for post-racial politicians to ascend to new heights." -foxnews.com-

Is this right? Is it fair? I don't believe so. I think it's a travesty that anyone who supports either candidate publicly would moderate any sort of debate. Could you be objective, assuming you have strong views towards one candidate or the other? I don't believe I could. I'm sure I would make an attempt to hit Obama with tough questions such as Bill O'Reilly did in his interview, while letting McCain off the hook.

My end-all question goes out to all Dems and liberals. How would you feel if say, Sean Hannity (an outspoken conservative) moderated this debate?

Debate Overview

Cnn.com has a good article summarizing Friday night's debate. 

McCain's strategy was about making sure people could see that he had experience and fits in the Oval Office. He was sure to point out that Obama does not have the same experience. McCain also tried to portray Obama as under-qualified and even incompetent. 

One of the topics "debated" was government spending. McCain would consider a spending freeze. Obama said "The problem is, you're using a hatchet where you need a scalpel." Both candidates agree that cutting spending is a good idea, the argument is about how much spending needs to be cut.

Both candidates spoke on the bailout proposal. Obama thinks this is the worst worst financial crisis since the Great Depression in the early 1900's. MCain thought it was a good thing that officials are trying to cross party lines to accomplish a common goal.

Both candidates thought that the United States is a much safer place now compared to the time of 9/11. 

Obama thinks that a change needs to be made about the relationship with Russia. He said that we can not act the same way we have for the past eight years and expect a different result. McCain said that he "would support the inclusion of Georgia and ukraine in NATO."

The War on Iraq was on of the last issues discussed. McCain believes that the United States is winning the war in Iraq. Obama completely disagrees and says that McCain was wrong about the war to begin with, insinuating that McCain would lead the country astray as president.

Overall, the debate was uneventful. Each candidate had a list of items that they wanted to be sure that people heard. Each candidate got to make a couple "digs" on each other and both of the senators seemed to get frustrated with their competition. 

Come on McCain, Get on the attack!

Anytime you read the latest poll, you have to keep in mind that there is some amount of fallacy in the poll, no matter how prestigious the polling center may be. This is logical, since the poll is asking people whom they plan to vote for a month from now. But one thing is certain, last week was not a good week for John McCain '08. While most commentators will say that there was no clear cut winner in the presidential debate that took place last Friday; a tie suggests that Senator Obama is the winner because McCain should have hit Obama hard on foreign policy issues. I think the debate provided insight to the candidates, but both were scared to go on the offensive, because the counterattack could prove far more effective. Meaning, Barack Obama had an opportunity to attack John McCain on the economy, especially after McCain has said, "the fundamentals of the economy are strong," and Obama did bring that up in the debate, but he did not hammer it home. I think the reason being is because Obama is considered weaker in the foreign policy domain that McCain, and if Obama attacked hard on the economy, McCain could attack hard on foreign policy. The reverse is also true.
McCain has lost ground recently in some battleground states, there is growing support for his vice-president Sarah Palin to step down and has received a lot of negative news coverage regarding the financial crisis. The Grand Old Party (GOP) is becoming increasingly concerned about their presidential hopeful and have urged McCain, privately and now publicly, to get on the offensive and attack Senator Obama from all angles. John McCain cannot wait, especially since early voting began as early today in Ohio, and more states are allowing early voting. The financial crisis is blamed on "failed Bush policies" and has created a climate in which Senator Obama's CHANGE seems like a breath of fresh air. In today's age of instant news coverage, waiting a day or two to make a political move seems like an eternity. The financial crisis, which is horrible for the country as a whole, is blamed more so on Republicans that Democrats, in fact, in a recent ABC News poll taken, 44% of people questioned blamed Republicans for the financial situation, compared to 21% of Democrats. This clearly puts McCain at a disadvantage, and there is really nothing he can do about it. So the bad press week and the financial situation, coupled with Sarah Palin's infamously pointless interview with Katie Couric has put a major hit on the McCain campaign, and while there is still 8 weeks until the election, this bombshell of negativity may be too much to overcome.

Debate

After sitting down and watching the debate in front of my computer this weekend, I noticed that we have two distinctly different candidates running for office. It was interesting how I felt like they did not want to talk to each other directly at all. McCain was softer spoken, and slower speeched rather than Obama who was more aggressive in his voice and louder. His faster pace made him able to put forth more information about his stances on issues and choices than McCain. I did notice that Obama's answers for the most part were close ended. He did not lead much for McCain to address in return. But as for when McCain spoke out, it always caused Obama to want to cut in and respond. Obama and McCain at times both disagreed with each other, but I felt like Obama showed that McCain was trying to speak on his platforms and wasn't exactly understanding where he was coming from. Obama made that clear every time he would interrupt and speak, and knowingly enough McCain let him take over his thunder. This showed me that McCain was not as strong as Obama was. I feel like Obama took more of a leader role in this debate with actually wanting to debate issues. McCain stuttered and flustered with many words at points, and did not seem as knowledgeable as Obama did. I felt like overall Obama won the debate with the presence he put forth and his ability to continue on without seeming to be upset or instigated like I believe McCain was trying to do. Especially since it appeared as though McCain was getting frustrated with how Obama would interrupt him.

Gotcha Sarah/McCain the Puppetmaster

As many of you might have seen there is a new tv interview with Sarah Palin and Katie Couric with an extra addition of John McCain. Is there any other way to show that your vice presidential nominee is not qualified more than having to go to a CBS tv interview with her to clear up the ongoing debate on whether she qualified to be one heartbeat away from the Presidency.

Watching the interview just a moment ago revealed something quite interesting to me that McCain looks very nervous when Gov. Palin is talking to Katie Couric. Couric is asking questions about Gov. Palin's reaction to attacking Pakistan since she said she would over the weekend. McCain throughout the interview tries to talk for Palin suggesting that they totally agree on foreign policy in regards to Pakistan even though she stated otherwise. McCain said the question wasn't stated clearly by the voter about Pakistan and it is normal to just give an answer off the top of your head. According to McCain it is just "Gotcha journalism". The fact is she said it to a voter.

This dual interview with McCain and Palin shows that she needs McCain there to back her up and talk for her to clerify any misunderstandings that the media has gotten from Palin's solo interviews. In the end this makes them look weaker especially if they don't agree on foreign poicy in regards to Pakistan.

Sarah Palin scares me.

The elitist political party bosses of the past are supposedly dead and gone, and control of the “political machine” has been given over to the citizens of the United States of America. But WHO, then, is shielding Sarah Palin from the public eye?

Although the pressures of the General Election are pressing down with full weight, it seems as though Palin is still fulfilling (or at least, attempting to do so) her preprimary “Surfacing” functions. Journalists, citizens, both Democrats and Republicans alike are calling out Sarah Palin on her inability to demonstrate fitness for office.

Yes, Sarah Palin can be endearing even. I won’t argue that those trademark glasses do indeed look good on her. She also has a vagina, but that fact alone will not command any support from me, nor would I hope a matter of sheer biology to be the most influential factor for any other female voters out there.

The fact of the matter is this: "Palin's recent interviews with Charles Gibson (ABC News), Sean Hannity (Fox News) and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate who is clearly out of her league."

Even Jack Cafferty was stunned during live CNN coverage concerning Palin’s “failed” interview with Katie Couric. “If John McCain wins,” says Caffetry, “ this woman will be one 72 year old’s heartbeat away from being President of the United States…and if that doesn’t scare the hell out of you, it should.”

I don't know about you all, but I can't wait to watch this week's vice-presidential debate.

Waiting for Thursday's Debate and Saturday's Parody

The presidential debate has been talked about endlessly, and most analysts agree that Obama won (at least the economic part, which has proved to be the most important one). Now it’s time for the Vice Presidents to battle it out.

At the Nominating Convention Palin seem to be a boost of energy for the Republicans…but is she ready for a debate? After Tina Fey’s imitation of Sarah Palin created such a huge buzz, I think we are all waiting for Palin to give the SNL writers some great material to work with during the debate. Palin is going to have to be credible, seem professional, and gain people’s respect (even if people do not agree with her views), to be able to win.

Since VP’s are selected and not voted on by the people, I think both of them will have to use some parts of stock speeches on the debate. Even though they are not the ones running, they will still have to make us believe they are credible speakers, especially Palin.

The debate will focus on the current financial crisis, which has proven to help the democrats. Biden’s job will be to stick to what has been working by using a challenger style. If he attacks the record of the opponent, calls for change, and emphasizes optimism for the future; I do not see how he could lose. We’ll have to wait and see. And then wait a little longer for Saturday to come along…

Barack Obama: Press Avail in Clearwater, Florida

.
In the news conference "Press Avail in Clearwater" Florida on September 23, Obama made a speech concerning the solution and urgency of dealing the financial crisis. He obviously uses the speech module. At the very beginning, he gained attention from the public that America faced a crucial momoment by repeating that the country was being tested and every American including the two parties should cooperate with each other to cope with the crisis, and it was a time for responsibility. Then he went into details of the problem by attacking his foe that it was their fault in their administration that had led America to this crisis, so he was describing the problem in details such as people's savings, people's jobs and country's ecnomic securities, to show the public that how urgent it was to solve the problem. Then he went on with a series of detailed plan of his solution to the problem, such as active and constant communication with relevant sides to negotiate for a solution, how the money should be used to save the vulberable market, how the ordinary citizens benefit will be proteced, the warnings given to Wallstree CEOs, etc.

Who won the debate?

Many Americans who have been following the presidential election are debating who won the debate last Friday. The McCain campaign stated, "There was one man who was presidential tonight; that man was John McCain." The Obama campaign stated, "This was a clear victory for Barack Obama on John McCain's home turf. Sen. McCain offered nothing but more of the same failed Bush policies, and Barack Obama made a forceful case for change in our economy and our foreign policy."

So who really won? I believe one true candidate did not stand out; however both candidates had their good and bad moments. If I had to give the edge to one of the candidates, I would give it to Obama. Obama presented his views on several issues much clearer than McCain. McCain was more worried about criticizing Obama about his stance on issues, than portraying his own. McCain took an offensive approach as he constantly bombarded Obama with complaints. Obama responded well in his defensive stance and kept his poise. When Obama was able to take the offensive, McCain did poorly in keeping his poise and it showed. I personally believe, McCain was banking on suspending the debate instead of preparing for it. I think it was evident that McCain was not prepared. Overall, If I had to give a slight edge to one candidate, I would give it to Obama.

Remarks By John McCain At Ohio Rally

during this time of the presedential campaign it is very important to gain peoples attention, especially bc we are getting close to the elections, ever speech the candidates say is very important to get the people vote. when McCain speaks in the speech of the Ohio Rally, he remidns the people how he put his campaign on hold to help solve the economic crises, by mentioning that he reminds and also gain the peoples attention of his intentions, and how trying to rescue americas economy is more important than the campaign, he says: "Some people have criticized my decision, but I will never, ever be a president who sits on the sidelines when this country faces a crisis. Some of you may have noticed, but it's not my style to simply "phone it in." he also points out the problem, thats obama's records isnt going to help 95% of the americans, he is not only point this out as a problem , he is also criticisizing the oponents record.

Striking Back on Economic Reform

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080923/GPG0101/309230018/1978

On Monday, Obama layed out his visions for managing the economy. His speech on government and regulatory reform came right when Congress considered bailing out of bad loans. Although he urged bipartisan support to help fix the crisis, he saw that this plan would need accountability. With this in mind, Obama stated that "no oversight and no accountability is exactly what got us in this mess in the first place."

Obama outlined proposals to help to prevent future financial crisis from reaching the bailout stage; proposals to help reform waste and abuse in the government. With this in mind, he has many ideas to work on the issues and focus on cutting government programs that do not work. He addressed many issues that need to be looked at and improved.

Many might not agree with his ideas, thinking that he is just playing it safe when emphasizing issues that are non-controversial. But if you look at it, he is talking about improving things that are in dire need of change and reform. Obama knows what the economy is facing and knows what needs to be done in order to bring that change about.

Stock Speeches Are Out

Unfortunately for me, I missed the presidential debate on Friday because I was in the middle of nowhere, which is located in Wisconsin. However, I did have the opportunity to watch the debate online. What an odd one...

The challenger strategies present in both candidates' talking points were incredibly potent. By opening the debate with a lead question of the current economic status and the proposed bailout was a significant kick-off. It allowed for both candidates to tie in their usual stock speeches as answers. To their advantage, any question about the economy will relate directly to any other issue almost flawlessly. For example, Obama took that question as a catapult into his stock speech module for better health care initiatives, increasing government spending, increasing the taxes on the rich, covering loopholes within the tax system for corporations, and even touching upon the war in Iraq. All of these points he made were simply reiterations of past speeches he has already made. Tim Russert recognized the module by both candidates easily and asked the same question two other times. He wanted to squeeze out a real answer, which was asking the candidates what spending they would cut due to the $700 billion bailout. He finally narrowed it down to McCain cutting spending everywhere except for defense, and Obama cutting spending from the war in Iraq. It was after this first gigantic question that the candidates finally started to withdraw from their usual stock speech modules and answer the questions directly.

Both candidates focused on challenger strategies heavily during the debate. The most used strategy from both was the use of attacking the record. McCain would often recall votes that Senator Obama passed during his career, providing specific numbers and naming particular legislation. Obama was also guilty of this strategy a few times. However, no candidate would accept the attacks without using the challenger strategy of delegating the attacks to control demagogic rhetoric. Obama said, more than once, "That's not true," while McCain was still talking. To Obama's credit, he was not incredibly forceful with his interjections, looking both strong and professional.

By taking the candidates out of the stock speech modules, the voters can finally get to the marrow of each senator's communication. Russert drew real answers out of the candidates during the debate, which the stock speeches usually leave vague. We are in the general election stage of the campaigns, which means we are looking to gain information. Although media outlets and opinion polls are helpful, we can only determine who we agree with more by obtaining our own information. This is done through the debates. I suggest that the stock speech module is only relevant before debates. After that, they are no longer necessary.

Bailout Plan?

The House defeated the proposed economic rescue package today, a bill that would have authorized unprecedented government intervention in the marketplace. While I agree that the U.S. needs a comprehensive plan to avert an economic disaster, common sense tells us that attempting to redesign U.S. capitalism in a little over a week--during an election season, no less--is absolute crazy. While the Democrats delivered their promised votes in favor of the bill, Republicans from across the country actually listened, and defeated the bill. We are in uncharted territory in the financial markets, but rest assured, Democracy, at least, is still breathing. Maybe such a vast plan so quick isn't our best option at this time. Over time we will be able to figure out what needs to be done.

House defeats $700B financial industry bailout

I just got done reading a post about how McCain may miss a Senate vote on the $700 billion bailout plan, but it turns out that they bill fell apart in the House. The real question for this blog surrounds what this means for the candidates and the rest of the country.

Now that the economy is in the crapper, what is the plan of the candidates to fix what Bush messed up (both directly and indirectly...)? (look, its the challenger strategy) Both candidates will surely post/publish responses that criticize the House and the Bush administration for their failings. The problem of our failing economy goes beyond party lines, but that's where the lines will be drawn in the sand. But after all that mud/sand/poop slinging will come the optimism for the future where both candidates will talk about how their, and only their, plan will be enough to fix things.

I personally think that no matter what happens, or who wins, the president really does not have the power to fix a failing economy - it all comes down to Congress. The entire "candidate plan" crap will only be a facade by which voters will be swayed, and then dropped from the face of the Earth once a winner is announced. Don't buy into it, people. Stay true to what this election is about - the issues.

John McCain may skip bailout vote

In the recent Presidential debate, the current financial crisis dominated the debate. Both Barack Obama and John McCain have spoke about the economic situation over and over again. However, neither candidate has committed to returning to the Senate to vote on the bill which will provide $700 billion to avoid economic collapse. This is particularly odd for Senator McCain whom wanted to postpone the debate because the Senate needed to focus on the economy, not the Presidential election. If John McCain does vote on this bill, it will be his first since March 14th. The last vote of Senator Obama was July 9th.
What is this really showing, particularly for John McCain whom has often criticized Barack Obama for not caring about anything else but winning the election? By abstaining from the vote, the candidates may criticize the effects of that bill, which would be advantageous to both candidates. I find this particularly odd from the McCain campaign, especially since the campaign has tried to show that Senator Obama has not done much in the Senate. Abstaining from this vote is a big risk. John McCain said on ABC's "This Week" that "doing nothing [not voting on this bill] is simply not an acceptable option." Again, if the bailout has terrible, unforeseen effects, then John McCain can say, "I did not vote for this bailout because I knew it was a mistake." However, if he does vote for it and it backfires, he will be on the record of supporting a huge burden on the taxpayers that provided no help to the economy.
The bill could be voted on as early as Monday afternoon, and both candidates are seemingly too busy in swing states and may not be able to return to vote. It will be interesting to see how the either candidate votes, if they do at all.

McCain appears on SportsCenter

In the past week John McCain appeared on ESPN's SportsCenter. He wasn't on the show to talk about the normal political issues, but to appeal to the sports world. McCain talked about how some sports need a better pension plan to help athletes. He also talked about the steroid problem that is facing Major League Baseball. The week before, Barack Obama also appeared on the show to talk about different sporting issues. I believe by appearing on the show, both candidates have appealed to a group of people who doesn't really follow the the political debates, or maybe some who don't care. I feel that this is a good way to get more people out to vote, and also have people get to know the candidates.

Debating: What's at Stake?

Debates have been held between political candidates in the US since before 1858, and they have become an unavoidable part of US presidential races since 1976. Obama and McCain may have found a good excuse to back down from this general election tradition in the Congressional discussion of the economic bailout package; Senator McCain certainly indicated his priorities by suggesting the suspension of the public debate in favor of the task on Capitol Hill. Friday night, the debate proceeded as planned, but are these debates advantageous to both candidates, and was there a hidden motive behind McCain’s hesitation?
According to Trent and Frieburg, deciding whether to hold a debate is a strategic campaign decision. Debates are more likely to take place when the election is close between two major candidates who are not incumbents, who each see a political advantage to be gained in debating. While the first three criteria were met by virtue of this 2008 presidential campaign, each candidate’s advantage in the debate is not as clear. Senator Obama’s strong backing of the debate, even in the midst of financial crisis, indicates that he had much to gain: the opportunity to prove himself in public discourse, distance himself from the current administration and the opposition, articulate his positions, all while gaining invaluable media coverage. Obama thus caught the public’s attention, identified the problem, and proposed his own solutions.
Though each candidate had an opportunity to accomplish these goals, neither came out as the strong leader of the debate. Resulting commentary has critiqued the topics discussed in this “foreign policy” debate, the lack of an image or theme developed by either candidate, and the resistance of the candidates to speak candidly to each other. We will see if either campaign learns from this first round and improves its showing in the next debates.

The next President: Bush #3

In an article entitled, “Bush Binges; Obama, McCain will pay” the authors claim the next president will be too busy working with picking up after Bush, that he will not be able to start his new policies. Saving the country from a financial tragedy, and working with getting the country out of debt, will be the president’s main job. The article mentions that since the Bush administration has taken over, the government has started two wars, and we are now finding ourselves close to $400 billion in debt. The next leader will have to get America back on track. Obama mentioned in the presidential debate that America’s image in the world needs to be restored. Both of the presidential candidates agree that something needs to be done about the financial and foreign policies of America. From past elections, we have seen the candidate progress from a positive changer during the campaign, to a leader who seems not to follow thru on any of their promises. We can only hope that once either McCain or Obama is elected, there really will be change.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/26/debate.friday/index.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/14027.html

Presidential Political Involvement in Washington’s Economic Bargaining: Helpful or Hurtful?

Last Friday Treasury Secretary Paulson released his bailout plan for Wall Street. Yet, still on Monday, John McCain thought the fundamentals of the economy were strong, which is why by Tuesday, he still had not bothered to read the three page proposal. All of a sudden by early Wednesday afternoon, we were in such a financial crisis that it became necessary to suspend the presidential campaigns to go to Washington.

Was it for hype or did John McCain seriously want to go to Washington to help regulate the economy, something that he boasts never before doing in his political career?
From what I have read, it is mostly a partisan debate. Since McCain was the one to suggest and emphasize the importance of being in Washington during the negotiations, his supporters have said that they were helpful. "I actually think Senator McCain and Senator Obama were one of the catalysts of this effort," Republican Senator Judd Gregg told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "Having them here in Washington highlighted dramatically for the American people just how dangerous this situation was to folks on Main Street."
Senator Dodd had a different view of the Presidential candidates’ appearances in Washington: "Will all due respect…That delayed and slowed down this process. I think we would have gotten closer to an agreement… had they not come ‘parachuting in.’" Senator Dodd also said, "Respectfully, John McCain did not help. In my view, that was a political stunt."

I agree with Senator Obama, that the eventual president will have to multitask in his job. While I think it is definitely important to hear about the different candidates’ views on the economy, I do agree that being in Washington was mostly a stunt by McCain to try to hold on in the polls, which has proved unsuccessful so far.

Check the facts

While I watched the debate Friday night, I felt frustrated by being presented with facts from both candidates that seemed contradictory. In response to some of McCain's accusations, Obama would say, that's simply not true. Oftentimes, both of them would say yes, that is true, but here's the full story.

Well, what is the story? What did Henry Kissinger actually say? Why does McCain want to give $4 million tax breaks to oil companies? Did Obama really say that we would have universal health care?? Why has Obama voted to support tax breaks to oil companies and to cut off funding for troops in Iraq?

For answers, I recommend this site:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gADGK1dtPMQ5bMNUHc70I2fLYGGwD93EQLEO0