Italy's Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi described Barack Obama as "young, handsome and even tanned." Some people were shocked and taken aback by this statement, but it was only meant as a joke. He said this at a news conference after meeting with the Russian president. Apparently, he said Obama has everything needed in order to reach deals.
If it's meant as a joke, then I see no problem with a comment like that. People should lighten up and have a sense of humor. If it was meant to be negative or anything, then I could see people getting upset. The article also said that Berlusconi has said questionable things before like comparing a German lawmaker to a Nazi camp guard and saying that there were too many women in the new Spanish government. I guess it all depends on how serious you take things, and how easily you can be offended. What do you think about it?
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Monday, November 3, 2008
With Election Day Coming Closer...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27483362?GT1=43001
Although this was a couple of days ago..... it caught my attention.
Both Obama and McCain uncorked massive "get-out-the-vote" operations in more than a dozen battleground states on Sunday. There were millions of telephone calls, mailings, and door-knockings in a frenzied climax to a record shattering $1 billion campaign. It says in the article that together they will spend about $8 per presidential vote.
"Polls show the six closest states are Florida, Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Nevada and Ohio. All were won by Bush and made competitive by Obama's record-shattering fundraising. The campaigns also are running aggressive ground games elsewhere, including Iowa, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Colorado and Virginia. "
As campaign closes more television ads are coming out. For example, Obama put a tv ad highlighting Dick Cheney's support for McCain. "The ad features Cheney, an extremely unpopular figure among the general public, at an event Saturday in Wyoming, saying: "I'm delighted to support John McCain. I'm pleased that he's chosen a running mate with executive talent, toughness and common sense, our next vice president Sarah Palin."
Here is another interesting tidbit that we were talking about in class on Thursday-about bellwethers..... "Obama and McCain campaigned on each other's turf Sunday. Obama was in Ohio, a bellwether state Bush won four years ago and where polls show Obama tied or winning."
To say the least, it will be interesting to see which states will have the vote for Obama or McCain!
Although this was a couple of days ago..... it caught my attention.
Both Obama and McCain uncorked massive "get-out-the-vote" operations in more than a dozen battleground states on Sunday. There were millions of telephone calls, mailings, and door-knockings in a frenzied climax to a record shattering $1 billion campaign. It says in the article that together they will spend about $8 per presidential vote.
"Polls show the six closest states are Florida, Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Nevada and Ohio. All were won by Bush and made competitive by Obama's record-shattering fundraising. The campaigns also are running aggressive ground games elsewhere, including Iowa, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Colorado and Virginia. "
As campaign closes more television ads are coming out. For example, Obama put a tv ad highlighting Dick Cheney's support for McCain. "The ad features Cheney, an extremely unpopular figure among the general public, at an event Saturday in Wyoming, saying: "I'm delighted to support John McCain. I'm pleased that he's chosen a running mate with executive talent, toughness and common sense, our next vice president Sarah Palin."
Here is another interesting tidbit that we were talking about in class on Thursday-about bellwethers..... "Obama and McCain campaigned on each other's turf Sunday. Obama was in Ohio, a bellwether state Bush won four years ago and where polls show Obama tied or winning."
To say the least, it will be interesting to see which states will have the vote for Obama or McCain!
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Hillary Clinton's Endorsement
In a recent and significant push for the Obama campaign, Senator Hillary Clinton of New York--formerly Senator Obama's bitter rival in the Democratic primaries--wrote a stunning endorsement letter in today's New York Daily News. You can see it at: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/11/02/2008-11-02_the_man_for_the_moment_hillary_clinton_m-3.html?page=0
Bear with me as I analyze the logic of her letter: The piece first emphasizes the importance of voting, then gives a scathing review of the Bush administration and its tax cuts for the rich, tax breaks for the oil companies, and inaction in the face of economic, health care, and energy crises. She characterizes President Bush's policies in this way so that the Republicans can be held generally responsible for their failure, which then reflects on McCain. This is a common argument put forth by the Democrats lately, although both parties are willing to use this tactic of generalization.
Similarly, in the next section, Senator Clinton references the positive aspects of her husband's presidency, such as job creation and balanced budgets. This attributes success to the Democrats, which reflects well on Obama. Clinton briefly mentions her policy initiatives and ideals but quickly moves on to emphatically restate the ideals of the Obama campaign and its policy agenda for an Obama administration, including his economic and health care plans. The letter ends with a reference to "closing the book on eight years of failed policies," but I think a more poignant statement she makes is that it is not "who are you for" but "who is for YOU."
This personal letter to the voters is a powerful endorsement and a well-coordinated political punch in the last days of the campaign. Undermining the opponent by using guilt by association, then extolling the virtue of your own side. It's an argument we are familiar with: do we believe it?
Bear with me as I analyze the logic of her letter: The piece first emphasizes the importance of voting, then gives a scathing review of the Bush administration and its tax cuts for the rich, tax breaks for the oil companies, and inaction in the face of economic, health care, and energy crises. She characterizes President Bush's policies in this way so that the Republicans can be held generally responsible for their failure, which then reflects on McCain. This is a common argument put forth by the Democrats lately, although both parties are willing to use this tactic of generalization.
Similarly, in the next section, Senator Clinton references the positive aspects of her husband's presidency, such as job creation and balanced budgets. This attributes success to the Democrats, which reflects well on Obama. Clinton briefly mentions her policy initiatives and ideals but quickly moves on to emphatically restate the ideals of the Obama campaign and its policy agenda for an Obama administration, including his economic and health care plans. The letter ends with a reference to "closing the book on eight years of failed policies," but I think a more poignant statement she makes is that it is not "who are you for" but "who is for YOU."
This personal letter to the voters is a powerful endorsement and a well-coordinated political punch in the last days of the campaign. Undermining the opponent by using guilt by association, then extolling the virtue of your own side. It's an argument we are familiar with: do we believe it?
Friday, October 31, 2008
Lowering Expectations
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5051118.ece
Plans are drawn up to lower expectancy of presidency if Obama wins next week's election shows concern that supporters are harbouring unrealistic hopes of what he can achieve. With the sudden financial crisis and the prospect of deep recession, has increased the urgency to try to bring people back down to earth in which his campaign of "change" and "hope" are confronted with the reality of a stricken economy. Even Obama himself realizes that expectations risked being inflated.
With an interview for the Colorado radio station, Obama seemed to already engage in expectation lowering and needing more time to tackle the big and costly issues of health care reform, global warming, and Iraq. Although the first days are going to be crucial and it will be hard to achieve his goals, Obama reassures his crowd that it will take time to make a difference.
Obama's tranistion team has been spending months planing a smooth transition; they are under no illusions about the size of the challenges the Democrat will inherit.
The challenges aboard for the next president are immense; big things need to be achieved early to still have the political capital to achieve ambitious leglislative goals. Obama intends to have early priorities that include a mixture of symbolism and substance. These priorties include making a major address in a big Muslim country early in the term and to make early moves to rid America of the controversial prison. His first legislative goals will be to follow through on tax cuts for the middle class and to push through a hugely expensive Bill to provide health insurance.
Plans are drawn up to lower expectancy of presidency if Obama wins next week's election shows concern that supporters are harbouring unrealistic hopes of what he can achieve. With the sudden financial crisis and the prospect of deep recession, has increased the urgency to try to bring people back down to earth in which his campaign of "change" and "hope" are confronted with the reality of a stricken economy. Even Obama himself realizes that expectations risked being inflated.
With an interview for the Colorado radio station, Obama seemed to already engage in expectation lowering and needing more time to tackle the big and costly issues of health care reform, global warming, and Iraq. Although the first days are going to be crucial and it will be hard to achieve his goals, Obama reassures his crowd that it will take time to make a difference.
Obama's tranistion team has been spending months planing a smooth transition; they are under no illusions about the size of the challenges the Democrat will inherit.
The challenges aboard for the next president are immense; big things need to be achieved early to still have the political capital to achieve ambitious leglislative goals. Obama intends to have early priorities that include a mixture of symbolism and substance. These priorties include making a major address in a big Muslim country early in the term and to make early moves to rid America of the controversial prison. His first legislative goals will be to follow through on tax cuts for the middle class and to push through a hugely expensive Bill to provide health insurance.
Obama draws many youth
Obama helping by looking in expenses of tuition for college students. when he visited Colorado State University. students had be waiting for Obama since 4 a.m. shows the true belief that Obama is going and will help the people that want to farther their education. to also make it much more affordable. during the same speech Obama brought up needs for new jobs and renewable energy. to help America get out of this hole they are in now. Obama enforced to embrace the new economy a look and support the new jobs of renewable energy source. would like to create 5 million new green jobs. in the town of Fort Collins Obama rallied 45,250 youth. Obama is here for everyone.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Text Your Representative in Washington
As Mr. Chenault described to us today in class, the internet and forms of new media such as text messaging and iphone applications have become increasingly important to political campaigns. Trent and Friedenberg predicted this evolution, although in the text they focus primarily on candidate websites. The Obama campaign clearly runs a third-tier website, where you can find not only information about the candidate and his platform but also information about the movement; multimedia galore including blogs, personal voter posts and candidate responses, and youtube videos; electronic applications that get you involved and help you organize; and, moreover, all this is also available in Spanish. Perhaps the percentage of candidates who run such a website is outdated in the text, but I'm willing to bet not many people running for public office have a website of this caliber.
I'm amazed at the organizational skills of this campaign and their use of new media. They seem to have thought of everything (and with a founding member of Facebook on board, maybe they have), to have taken every angle of attack to get people involved, all without creating a chaotic mess of bureaucracy. I'm very interested to know how this will carry-over to Obama's administration, if elected. It seems that his staffers have found unique and modern ways to mobilize people for political purposes: people have more faith in not only voter efficacy but in their ability to hold elected officials accountable. What if, a year from now, text messages went out to 4 million individuals who then called or wrote (or texted?) their representatives in support of a bill? Why should their be any lag between decisions made in Washington and voter response? Is this a significant step toward governmental transparency and responsiveness?
I'm amazed at the organizational skills of this campaign and their use of new media. They seem to have thought of everything (and with a founding member of Facebook on board, maybe they have), to have taken every angle of attack to get people involved, all without creating a chaotic mess of bureaucracy. I'm very interested to know how this will carry-over to Obama's administration, if elected. It seems that his staffers have found unique and modern ways to mobilize people for political purposes: people have more faith in not only voter efficacy but in their ability to hold elected officials accountable. What if, a year from now, text messages went out to 4 million individuals who then called or wrote (or texted?) their representatives in support of a bill? Why should their be any lag between decisions made in Washington and voter response? Is this a significant step toward governmental transparency and responsiveness?
Friday, October 24, 2008
"The Ignored Issue"
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/23/social.security/index.html#cnnSTCText
Recently there was an assertion that both candidates have been spending ample time in addressing the budget crisis but have not really zoned in on the concerns growing with Social Security. Obama's campaign disagrees with this statement.
So in talking about Social Security, what does Obama intend to do? As seen in events, paid media, and terms of policy, Obama takes an approach to ensure the long-term health of Social Security. For one he will not risk Social Security savings to the whims of the stock market. Obama also opposes privatizing social security knowing the way to fix a system is by strenthening the payroll tax system; and he opposes raising the retirement age.
Once the candidate is in office, there will definately be some changes and hopefully the changes will show the positive. I feel that Obama has some good ideas with the Social Security plans he intends to follow out... why keep trying something that is continuing to hurt rather than help?
Recently there was an assertion that both candidates have been spending ample time in addressing the budget crisis but have not really zoned in on the concerns growing with Social Security. Obama's campaign disagrees with this statement.
So in talking about Social Security, what does Obama intend to do? As seen in events, paid media, and terms of policy, Obama takes an approach to ensure the long-term health of Social Security. For one he will not risk Social Security savings to the whims of the stock market. Obama also opposes privatizing social security knowing the way to fix a system is by strenthening the payroll tax system; and he opposes raising the retirement age.
Once the candidate is in office, there will definately be some changes and hopefully the changes will show the positive. I feel that Obama has some good ideas with the Social Security plans he intends to follow out... why keep trying something that is continuing to hurt rather than help?
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
A Numbers Game
We have been trying for more than three decades to reform campaign finance, but the private money of large donors continues to slip through our fingers and into the candidates' coffers. Breaking stories on National Public Radio ("Obama's $150 Million Changing Rules of the Game") and the New York Times ("In Fine Print, a Proliferation of Large Donors") in the last two days have revealed the staggering amount of personal donations the candidates or their joint fund-raising committees have received.
A history of campaign finance reform: In 1971, Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act limiting the use of a candidate's personal or family money during a campaign, hoping to open the race to anyone, no matter the candidate's family fortune. FECA also created Political Action Committees (PACs) to raise money on behalf of candidates, and it provided for public disclosure of funds raised. The Act was shortly amended in 1974 to create contribution ceilings, spending limits, federal subsidies and funding (public financing), and a Federal Election Commission. A remaining loophole that said that party committees could raise and spend unlimited amounts of money created the problem of "soft money," which was controversial during Clinton's reelection campaign in 1996. In 2001, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act closed this loophole, raised individual donor limits to compensate, and rescinded limits on "non-political groups." It is noteworthy that Senator McCain, along with Senator Feingold, was a key drafter and supporter of this bill.
Fast-forward to our 2008 general election campaign. Senator McCain accepts public financing, limiting his coffers to $84 million. Senator Obama becomes the first major party presidential candidate to refuse public financing since 1974 when it was instated. In September alone, the Obama campaign raises $150 million. Initially, this was reported as the influx from 632,000 new donors (bringing the total donor roll to 3 million), the average donation size being just $86 (NPR, 20 Oct). This seems to convey a public mandate: If 10% of the population is donating to, let alone supporting, the Obama campaign, and if the average donor could very well be any "poor" college student or blue-collar worker, Senator Obama's candidacy certainly seems to be mandated by a sweeping majority. Could this be the most publicly-supported campaign in our generation? Has the Average Joe (not "Six Pack" or "the Plumber") really beaten out interest groups as the most powerful and populous donor?
Today's New York Times undermines these hopes. An analysis of campaign finance reports filed last week reveals the large impact of individual contributors writing checks that would fund our college education. Donors from industries with an interest in Washington policies have written checks over $25,000 to the joint fund-raising committees of both campaigns. The largest sector donating to the candidates? Securities and investments, including executives of recently bailed-out groups like AIG and Lehman Brothers. The Obama campaign's record contributions in September were helped by over 600 donations over $25,000. The McCain campaign has accepted contributions as large as $70,000.
The New York Times article goes on to specify the interests involved, explain the distribution of these single checks, and voice the worries of campaign finance watchdogs who rightly say these contributions "undermine the whole spirit of the system." Technically, these contributions are legal under today's laws; should they remain that way?
Open questions to the two candidates: How do these large contributions comply with the spirit of campaign finance reform? How will these donors sway your policy initiatives? Explain to the American public why you consider this to be ethical?
Open questions to the donors: What political clout does your donation give you? Why donate these large amounts to a political campaign? What level of CEO salary at a failing financial institution allows you to donate this amount? You are obviously in the upper income bracket; is the amount you donated equivalent to a 3% tax increase?
A moral imperative for the public: We must demand not only transparency in campaign finance but also responsibility and ethical behavior: an executive accepting tens of thousands of dollars from one economic sector cannot remain objective in his/her policy initiatives. Our elected officials must be accountable to the public, not to industries and special interests.
Please read these articles in their entirety for a full view:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95882376
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/21/us/politics/21donate.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin
A history of campaign finance reform: In 1971, Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act limiting the use of a candidate's personal or family money during a campaign, hoping to open the race to anyone, no matter the candidate's family fortune. FECA also created Political Action Committees (PACs) to raise money on behalf of candidates, and it provided for public disclosure of funds raised. The Act was shortly amended in 1974 to create contribution ceilings, spending limits, federal subsidies and funding (public financing), and a Federal Election Commission. A remaining loophole that said that party committees could raise and spend unlimited amounts of money created the problem of "soft money," which was controversial during Clinton's reelection campaign in 1996. In 2001, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act closed this loophole, raised individual donor limits to compensate, and rescinded limits on "non-political groups." It is noteworthy that Senator McCain, along with Senator Feingold, was a key drafter and supporter of this bill.
Fast-forward to our 2008 general election campaign. Senator McCain accepts public financing, limiting his coffers to $84 million. Senator Obama becomes the first major party presidential candidate to refuse public financing since 1974 when it was instated. In September alone, the Obama campaign raises $150 million. Initially, this was reported as the influx from 632,000 new donors (bringing the total donor roll to 3 million), the average donation size being just $86 (NPR, 20 Oct). This seems to convey a public mandate: If 10% of the population is donating to, let alone supporting, the Obama campaign, and if the average donor could very well be any "poor" college student or blue-collar worker, Senator Obama's candidacy certainly seems to be mandated by a sweeping majority. Could this be the most publicly-supported campaign in our generation? Has the Average Joe (not "Six Pack" or "the Plumber") really beaten out interest groups as the most powerful and populous donor?
Today's New York Times undermines these hopes. An analysis of campaign finance reports filed last week reveals the large impact of individual contributors writing checks that would fund our college education. Donors from industries with an interest in Washington policies have written checks over $25,000 to the joint fund-raising committees of both campaigns. The largest sector donating to the candidates? Securities and investments, including executives of recently bailed-out groups like AIG and Lehman Brothers. The Obama campaign's record contributions in September were helped by over 600 donations over $25,000. The McCain campaign has accepted contributions as large as $70,000.
The New York Times article goes on to specify the interests involved, explain the distribution of these single checks, and voice the worries of campaign finance watchdogs who rightly say these contributions "undermine the whole spirit of the system." Technically, these contributions are legal under today's laws; should they remain that way?
Open questions to the two candidates: How do these large contributions comply with the spirit of campaign finance reform? How will these donors sway your policy initiatives? Explain to the American public why you consider this to be ethical?
Open questions to the donors: What political clout does your donation give you? Why donate these large amounts to a political campaign? What level of CEO salary at a failing financial institution allows you to donate this amount? You are obviously in the upper income bracket; is the amount you donated equivalent to a 3% tax increase?
A moral imperative for the public: We must demand not only transparency in campaign finance but also responsibility and ethical behavior: an executive accepting tens of thousands of dollars from one economic sector cannot remain objective in his/her policy initiatives. Our elected officials must be accountable to the public, not to industries and special interests.
Please read these articles in their entirety for a full view:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95882376
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/21/us/politics/21donate.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin
Friday, October 17, 2008
White Independents
According to an article on politico.com, Obama has taken the lead for the support of white independents. He has the edge of 45 percent to 43 percent in favor of McCain. The thing that shocked me was that 8 in 10 of independents are white. This is the group that the candidates need to cater to in these last few weeks. Most Republicans will vote for McCain, and most Democrats will vote for Obama, so that leaves the undecided independent voters. Voters still think Obama is better suited to handle the economy, whereas more people think McCain can handle national security. This poll has been a huge swing from just last week when McCain was up by as much as 8 percentage points. I guess it must be the ailing economy that is taking a toll on just about everyone. I consider myself an independent, and I am concerned about the state of things, especially since I'll be looking for a job in about a year and a half. How do the other independents feel about everything? Do you fit the poll of 8 in 10 for support of Obama?
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Hitting Hard on The Radio
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/14134.html
It is a strategy that has gone unnoticed since the beginning, and Obama is using this tactic. Barack Obama is contesting an intense radio campaign against McCain in some of the most competitive electoral battlegrounds. These attack ads include issues including abortion and stem-cell research which are some of Obama's aggressive spots. The attack ads have occured as McCain has drawn criticism over questionable content in its own negative ads.
Also another interesting tidbit in this article was the fact that a radio station has had a number of perceptions from people thinking that their station (KBCO)"is in the tank for Obama." However, the radio station is just another way for Presidential candidates to get their word out; and this is what the radio station is doing. They have a legal obligation to sell political advertising for whoever wants it- its all fair game.
Obama radio ads have come at timely attacks on local issues and these "under-the-radar" attack strategies seem to be working.
It is a strategy that has gone unnoticed since the beginning, and Obama is using this tactic. Barack Obama is contesting an intense radio campaign against McCain in some of the most competitive electoral battlegrounds. These attack ads include issues including abortion and stem-cell research which are some of Obama's aggressive spots. The attack ads have occured as McCain has drawn criticism over questionable content in its own negative ads.
Also another interesting tidbit in this article was the fact that a radio station has had a number of perceptions from people thinking that their station (KBCO)"is in the tank for Obama." However, the radio station is just another way for Presidential candidates to get their word out; and this is what the radio station is doing. They have a legal obligation to sell political advertising for whoever wants it- its all fair game.
Obama radio ads have come at timely attacks on local issues and these "under-the-radar" attack strategies seem to be working.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Biden and Clintons team up for Obama
On October 12th, Joe Biden continued the Obama campaign in Scranton, Pennsylvania. Bill and Hilary Clinton joined Biden at the rally for their support of Obama. Bill and Hilary focused their persuasion on the middle class stating Obama's Democratic ticket is the best choice for their financial future. Bill told voters that Biden knows "the most about the economic, political, and security challenges of America." After the rally, Bill was continuing the Obama Democratic campaign in Virginia.
The Obama campaigning by Bill and Hilary Clinton is a perfect example of unifying the Democratic party. Bill and Hilary are attempting to rally all Democratic supporters to vote for Obama. Hilary won the Pennsylvania primary by 10% over Obama; therefore their is potential for Hilary supporters to not vote for Obama. Hilary is attempting to counter this potential risk by rallying her supporters to think Democrat. This is an obvious attempt by Bill and Hilary to build up resources for Hilary's future campaigning. If Obama is elected president, Hilary can run in 2012 or 2016 and have the support of the incumbent. The Clinton's are providing much support for Obama; therefore Obama will repay the debt when his term is over assuming he is elected into office.
The Obama campaigning by Bill and Hilary Clinton is a perfect example of unifying the Democratic party. Bill and Hilary are attempting to rally all Democratic supporters to vote for Obama. Hilary won the Pennsylvania primary by 10% over Obama; therefore their is potential for Hilary supporters to not vote for Obama. Hilary is attempting to counter this potential risk by rallying her supporters to think Democrat. This is an obvious attempt by Bill and Hilary to build up resources for Hilary's future campaigning. If Obama is elected president, Hilary can run in 2012 or 2016 and have the support of the incumbent. The Clinton's are providing much support for Obama; therefore Obama will repay the debt when his term is over assuming he is elected into office.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
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.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
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.
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?
Monday, September 29, 2008
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.
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.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
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.
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.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Obama "wins" the debate
Misstatements and stumbles seem to be the downfall of John McCain. The Obama website has been plastered with newspaper headlines claiming him to be the "winner" of the debate. Time suggests he won based on his tactics and strategies, including: "...more knowledgable, and better suited to deal with the economic crisis and domestic problems the country faces."
Also found in the New York Times is the statement that "Obama dominated the economic portion of the debate." This was CRUCIAL for Obama because of the current standings of our stock market and failing banks mortgage companies. Personally, I believe it is going to come down to the economic and domestic issues when deciding the next president.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Attacks on Palin or Campaigning for Hilary?
Bill Clinton stated that Democrats should avoid personal attacks on Palin. Democrats have been attacking Palin's experience because she has a thin resume. Karl Rove is a former Bush strategist, and he concluded that attacking a V.P. candidate has rarely proven effective in determining election outcomes. Bill Clinton stated several personal reasons why he likes Palin. Clinton feels that for the number two GOP spot she is a good candidate.
I get this impression that Bill Clinton thinks he is still campaigning for Hilary's run at office. I think it is a very obvious strategy when Bill Clinton focuses on gender during this presidential election. Bill Clinton is covertly attempting to increase Hilary's popularity and chance in the next election.
Bill also states he believes Hilary would have been a better choice as the Democratic V.P. candidate. Bill thinks she is most qualified due to her support throughout the country. I agree her support is strong and would have influenced the Democrats in a positive way. Placing Clinton as the 2008 V.P would have unified the party tremendously. I do not understand why Obama did not select Clinton as his V.P. because I believe he would have walked into office with little resistance.
I get this impression that Bill Clinton thinks he is still campaigning for Hilary's run at office. I think it is a very obvious strategy when Bill Clinton focuses on gender during this presidential election. Bill Clinton is covertly attempting to increase Hilary's popularity and chance in the next election.
Bill also states he believes Hilary would have been a better choice as the Democratic V.P. candidate. Bill thinks she is most qualified due to her support throughout the country. I agree her support is strong and would have influenced the Democrats in a positive way. Placing Clinton as the 2008 V.P would have unified the party tremendously. I do not understand why Obama did not select Clinton as his V.P. because I believe he would have walked into office with little resistance.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Who are They Really Speaking To?
While reading chapter 6, I learned a lot about the actual speaking process, and kind of realized how brave a person must be in order to run for president. Not only for having to get up and speak in front of millions of people, but for also just putting themselves out there! When it comes to running for president both Obama and McCain are trying to get all the votes they can, meaning that they have to play out to all the different "audiences." The chief function is to simply pinpoint which issues should be, or would be better off coming up in a specific area! I can only imagine how hard it must be to make sure you dont say something wrong in a certain area, because then you have the worry of losing votes all together! Public speaking is very hard for me, so no one has to worry about me running for president ever~!
Friday, September 19, 2008
Economic Credibility
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5839771&page=1
With the "federal bailout of Wall Street" Presidential candidate Barack Obama adopted a strategy in which he would step back from giving specific details about reviving financial market. He felt it was unnecessary and wasn't interested in "scoring political points" but to make sure that a plan for the economic meltdown will in deed be sound and work. Obama took a step back from interfering with a plan that Congress and the U.S. administration is drawing up and will be be watching and taking part of the efforts now underway.
Also, Obama felt that it was crucial at this time that the markets have confidence that their work will not be impeded by partisan wrangling; both parties should work in concert to solve the problem at hand.
Instead of immediately blurting out details of how he is going to fix this meltdown, Obama took a step forward in waiting, wanting to conjure up a plan that will be systematic, work, and not negatively effect everyone in the making. There isn't an immediate fix to these economic problems, it takes time to look at all the finer points and try to make the best plan to bring out a positive outcome.
With the "federal bailout of Wall Street" Presidential candidate Barack Obama adopted a strategy in which he would step back from giving specific details about reviving financial market. He felt it was unnecessary and wasn't interested in "scoring political points" but to make sure that a plan for the economic meltdown will in deed be sound and work. Obama took a step back from interfering with a plan that Congress and the U.S. administration is drawing up and will be be watching and taking part of the efforts now underway.
Also, Obama felt that it was crucial at this time that the markets have confidence that their work will not be impeded by partisan wrangling; both parties should work in concert to solve the problem at hand.
Instead of immediately blurting out details of how he is going to fix this meltdown, Obama took a step forward in waiting, wanting to conjure up a plan that will be systematic, work, and not negatively effect everyone in the making. There isn't an immediate fix to these economic problems, it takes time to look at all the finer points and try to make the best plan to bring out a positive outcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
