The Looking Glass

The Last Post?

2008-12-19T11:13:00.002-06:00

Dear Friends (sounds like McCain),

We've reached the end of a really terrific semester. I must admit that I lost track of the blog for awhile, but I was pleased to see that you guys kept it going and even accelerated the traffic in the last couple weeks. We even seem to have attracted some outside people, including the guy who wants to sell us on ways to get rich in the recession.

The blog will stay up for anyone who wants to keep using it.

Thanks for everything; it's been a great ride.

Obama: Change

2008-12-07T22:28:00.002-06:00

Obama claims to be all about change. What changes do you think Obama is capable of changing?

2008-12-07T14:50:00.001-06:00

Just curious, what do you think the first 100 days of the Obama presidency will look like? What do you think he needs to deal with first?

Recession finally called, you have to wonder

2008-12-01T22:13:00.003-06:00

When will we start to feel it? Obama has to be shaking. Things just seem to get worse and worse for the president elect. Can the nation continue to just throw tax money at a failing economy if it isn't going to really fix anything. With the official announcement of recession it seems that the market has dropped and may continue to drop even further. Should we brace ourselves?

http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/01/markets/markets_newyork/index.htm?postversion=2008120115

No Hispanic Support for McCain

2008-11-17T16:36:00.003-06:00

Check out this article-- McCain only won 31% of the hispanic vote! The author notes that the economy, immigration, education, and healthcare were some issues that the Republican party failed to overcome.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15665.html

Opponents Meet Eye to Eye

2008-11-17T15:07:00.002-06:00

Today McCain is traveling to Chicago inorder to meet with President-elect Obama to come through on his promise to, "do all in my power to help [Barack Obama] lead us through the many challenges we face." Is this meeting going to be a fruitful one or a failure, and is it possible for for McCain to seriously be apart of Obama's future decisions as president?

2008-11-13T16:33:00.003-06:00

Voter turnout

2008-11-11T18:48:00.003-06:00

An interesting article that has a variety of opinions about the voter turnout: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i34ao3tow5yhj2v7v24HM_wbT8JQD948LJRG0

Congratulations America (for fixing nothing)

2008-11-10T21:30:00.004-06:00

Congratulations America, you managed to elect a candidate who might be more likely to save you from the impending economic apocalypse. You gave power to the left so that they might implement their policies. So now we get the reverse of what we had six years ago when the Republicans controlled everything and a terrorist induced apocalypse was imminent. So now in another four or maybe eight years we will see the whole thing switch again.

Regardless of what happens none of the real problems will get addressed:

the deficit- which will destroy us all
uninformed voters- "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government."- Thomas Jefferson 1789
the partisanship that makes polarizes American politics
the fat, the sick, the poor
Islamic radicalism- this will require continuous suppression
the Chinese- God help us when they stop bailing us out
reality tv- because I hate it
general incompetence

That a way America. Nice work.

McCain giving in early

2008-11-10T19:19:00.002-06:00

Josh Peterson and I were on our way out of Sorin last tuesday night of the election at about 9:45 central time when we were caught of guard by the television. John McCain was giving his concession speech before all the states had finished voting. It was obvious that McCain was going to lose the election but by giving in early it didnt give people a chance that hadnt yet voted to feel like their vote really matters. Also I really liked Obama's acceptance at Winter Park in Chicago. I thought it was really a good idea to have a glass "cage" surrounding him. I reluctantly believe that before Obama's four years of service is complete, a sick bastard will try to assassinate him. Any thoughts on that?

Sure we're biased. So what?

2008-11-10T16:44:00.002-06:00

An interesting article about the favoritism that some believe the Obama campaign received from the press: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14982.html.

McCain's Concession Speech

2008-11-10T09:40:00.000-06:00

I was very impressed with John McCain’s concession speech. The things he said and the way in which he said them surprised me. It didn’t seem like the McCain we’d seen throughout the election. It makes me wonder if the Senator had been like he was on election night throughout the campaign, if maybe the results would have been different. If McCain had been that articulate and sincere, maybe he would have been making a very different speech Tuesday night. I don’t know if this is just my impression, or if others feel the same way.
Heres the link to his speech if anyone hasn't seen it yet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bss6lTP8BJ8

Coverage of the race

2008-11-09T23:40:00.002-06:00

As the race unfolded, Americans around the country were watching. While I was watching the predictions, it seemed a bit skewed. Political analysts were debating whether McCain could win or not at many points during the night. Specifically it seemed as if the analysts were holding onto the hope that McCain could win. They seemed biased because they focused on the probability of McCain winning right up until Obama won the needed amount of electoral votes. On the smart screen one analyst was predicting how many red states McCain had to win, instead of focusing on the reality of Obama winning California and the electoral votes. As a viewer I could predict that Obama would take California and get the electoral votes needed to win the election. Next election analysts should focus on reality more than just continually being optimistic for one candidate.

Coverage of Election as it unfolded

2008-11-09T23:38:00.001-06:00

Was the coverage of the race accurate on the night of the election?

The Electoral College

2008-11-06T19:40:00.002-06:00

Watching this year's election got me thinking about the way the Presidential election is run. I asked myself one question--why do we have the electoral college? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it was instituted to give some of the power to each individual state, so the federal government didn't hold all of the power. But in my opinion, the system is outdated. In these days, your state of residence can be anywhere you want because it is so easy to move around the country. Considering all this, there is one observation I had--A McCain vote in let's say Minnesota or California means absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things. Why isn't a popular vote used for the election? Am I being ignorant and missing something here? I will come out and say I know next to nothing about the political process, so if someone more learned than me can give me an explanation I'd be glad to acknolwedge them.

-Tyler

"It's been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this date in this election at this defining moment change has come to America."

2008-11-06T19:29:00.003-06:00

Here's a link to the full transcript of Obama's acceptance speech: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/04/obama.transcript/index.html
Here's a link to the first part of his acceptance speech (it's posted in 3 parts.) You can see the glass box when his family is on the stage at the beginning (they walk past it.) Other than that it's hard to tell.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrXkBuWNx88&feature=related

I've compiled a list of some of the quotes I find to be the most moving in the speech.

"If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer."

"I was never the likeliest candidate for this office. We didn't start with much money or many endorsements. Our campaign was not hatched in the halls of Washington. It began in the backyards of Des Moines and the living rooms of Concord and the front porches of Charleston. It was built by working men and women who dug into what little savings they had to give $5 and $10 and $20 to the cause."

"To those -- to those who would tear the world down: We will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security: We support you. And to all those who have wondered if America's beacon still burns as bright: Tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity and unyielding hope."

"America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves -- if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made?"

These are only a few quotes from a long speech and as Professor Hudson said our children may be studying this speech (including Trevor's children that won't be voting for Rick.) To be honest, at this point I can only hope that the man succeeds. He is inheriting what could be described as the hardest economic task since FDR took over for Hoover.

Will the Real Joe Plumber Please Stand Up?

2008-11-06T19:09:00.001-06:00

According to the Washington Post Senator John McCain said the word Joe 23 times in his speech. Am I a silly Obama supporter or was McCain’s reference to Joe the Plumber a waste of time? McCain brought to the debate a story of a man (Joe) who approached Obama and asked him about his economic plan. Obama during the debate stated that 95% of citizens making less than $250,000 a year would be subject to a tax break when he becomes president. Joe approached Barack about his plan not giving him a break since he made more than that amount. The argument being that Joe (in pursuit of the American Dream,) after becoming an owner instead of just a worker would be punished to a point that he may have a tough time keeping his business afloat. What is McCain’s tactic then? Is he hinting at Obama excluding those that have become successful after being part of the tax break? McCain’s campaign could have been reaching for those chasing the American Dream. He also could’ve been trying to swing the voters that are not covered in either his economic plan or Obama’s by saying Obama’s plan definitely doesn’t include these voters. Overall Joe has received a quick ticket to fame and for no reason other than McCain mentioning him over and over again. Watching the debate I felt more annoyed than anything else. I understand that he wanted to get the point across and perhaps the fact that I was annoyed is saying that I thought about it after the debate. Unfortunately I’d say my thoughts about it were more of a reminder of why I’m not voting for McCain.
“I’m not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago.” Perhaps McCain’s best and most influential quote of the night. The Washington Post suggests that it was probably scripted but agreed as to its importance. “George Stephanopoulos from ABC News said in his postscript that McCain should’ve used it in his first debate” (Shales.) Since McCain is part of the same political party as Bush, people can generalize about his sharing of beliefs. Being grouped with Bush has been one of McCain’s problems since the beginning of his campaign and thus I agree with Stephanopoulos this should’ve been established a long time ago. As a former citizen of Arizona I know that McCain is for the most part the maverick he claims to be, however I think he should’ve stated this more plainly throughout the election as he did in this debate. He should’ve connected being a maverick with being anti Bush to begin with. Obama’s response was rather quick as he stated that 80 % of the time McCain voted for Bush’s economic policies. This stat emphasizes McCain agreeing with Bush’s economic plans (which may have lead us to the first depression since 1929.)
To combat this McCain talked about his desire to rid the United States of deficit spending. In an ideal world the U.S. wouldn’t be in trillions of dollars in debt, but for a president to say that is bold. There aren’t many ways to do something like that. One of the main options for reducing deficit spending is raising taxes. However McCain w5ants to cut taxes not increase them. Will cutting the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25% boost business enough to make more money off of this? Or perhaps here McCain is returning to his theme of being the fair presidential candidate, the candidate who will stand for the rights of Joe the Plumber. One couldn’t help but notice how often Obama just smirked with disbelief at the statements about not only Joe the Plumber but many other points McCain brought up. The Washington Post wrote that the reactions “diminish the charges” made by McCain, especially when he was on the attack.
One of the tense moments in the speech came when Bob Schieffer asked a question to the candidates regarding their use of negative ads, asking if they would say these things to the face of the opposing candidate. Neither of them said the exact words nor did they say that they really supported the specific term used. Instead they kind of described how the opposite candidate could be described as the specific term. For instance, McCain’s argument that early in the presidential race Obama agreed to ten town hall meetings. However they only had one debate that was a town hall style and not one of the ten town hall meetings were held. McCain was poking at Obama’s character and trying to point out how he could be considered a liar in this instance. The Washington Post brought up a good point here, “There was an obvious irony in that [McCain bring up Obama not participating in the 10 town hall meetings,] since McCain's performance at the one debate with a town-meeting format was among his poorest.” During this question Obama also stated that all of McCain’s campaign advertisements have been negative and said that 2/3s of the population believes McCain’s campaign to be more negative based.
Schieffer’s second most interesting question in my opinion was the question, “Why would the country be better off if your running mate became president rather than his running mate.” Obama stressed (again) that him and Biden share core values, as they differ on a few things the basic principles Obama believes and the direction he wants to take the country Biden agrees with. Here McCain made a bit of a mistake by saying Palin is a woman’s role model. In the theatre I viewed this in the crowd erupted into laughter. Call me a liberal but it’s hard to believe Palin is the symbol women are looking for and it was one of the few slip ups the candidates have had when it comes to referring to a minority such as women or African Americans (two of the minorities involved in this year’s race.) When Obama was asked if he thought Palin was qualified, he dodged the question, a good idea according to The Washington Post as they deemed that particular topic as unwinnable. The fact is the race may be more about these minorities than the public would like to admit but the candidates know that talking about it would jeopardize their place in the campaigns right now. If a swing voter hears a comment that they could take offense to could sway them to the other side. This is one of the view things I think could still gain or lose votes for candidates (shooting themselves in the foot.)
Overall I believe that neither candidate really won the debate. McCain made it clear he was not Bush and made a few good points but as The Washington Post puts it, “too little, too late.” Obama didn’t make any great strides either but he didn’t do anything stupid, and with a lead in the polls doing nothing is doing something. The final few weeks will be interesting to watch but Republican’s can’t be thinking that Joe the Plumber was the answer to the prayers.

Works Cited
Shales, Tom. "Candidates Make A Name for This Guy Joe." The Washington Post 16 Oct 2008
C01. 20 Oct 2008 .

Election results: Obama able to capture new states

2008-11-05T15:11:00.000-06:00

Obama was able to not only hold onto all of the states that were won by Kerry in the 2004 election but also able to win some stongly republican states in the mountain/plains region. He won in both Monatana and Nevada, both states that voted Bush in 2004. His victory became clear as well when he took Ohio, anothere state that voted bush in '04, a state that no president has ever lost. This re-coloring of the map of the U.S. from red to blue could mean big things for future elections and could make for many more battleground states in future presidential elecitons.

Only Time Will Tell

2008-11-04T17:18:00.004-06:00

On Wednesday, October 15th, 2008, a handful of Hamline students, myself included, gathered on a Metro Transit bus. Our goal was to join other college intellectuals in watching the ultimate and final presidential debate. We all anticipated a large number of politically riled up observers, perhaps with picket signs and posters in hand. Upon arrival at our intended designation, Willey Hall, at the University of Minnesota’s Twin Cities campus, what we found were not hoards of U students, but a mere dozen of debaters waiting for the show to start. Regardless of the minimal outcome, all of us were on the edge of our seats, eager to hear what candidates Barack Obama and John McCain had to say. I was awaiting answers from both parties that contained more substance and conviction than seen in the first two debates. The initial presidential debates were relatively uneventful and to some degree—disappointing. It seems that every night, dozens of expensive political ads are aired nationwide poking fun at, and attacking each candidate. When it was finally game time, I wanted to see these two gentlemen play to their full political potential-- face-to-face, unedited, and uncut.
I had three primary expectations going into this last debate in which I hoped both parties would meet. I really wanted both candidates to touch base on important topics other than the economy. There are so many divisive issues in America today that cannot go without attention: immigration, education, social security, global warming, and healthcare. Secondly, when discussing such issues, I hoped Obama and McCain would talk a bit more realistically, and less robotic and scripted. In the last two debates, both frequently abused key terms and sentences previously used in their campaigns: fundamental, change, economic crisis, etc. How can a candidate relate to the American people when they sound like they’re reading off of a teleprompter? Lastly, I wanted both parties to provide adequate and descriptive solutions to the problems and questions raised. Much to my surprise, the candidates somewhat met my expectations, but they still jumped around and jumbled a couple of questions. Conclusively, I think it was by the far their strongest debate.
For the past few weeks, Obama and McCain have been understandably wrapped up in reforming one single issue, the economy. It was refreshing to see moderator Bob Schieffer throw ten diverse and concise questions at both senators. Some of the issues talked about included the character of the campaigns, the economy, healthcare, abortion, taxes, and education. One of the most pressing and controversial social issues in the United States, abortion, was brought up by Mr. Schieffer in the form of a question aimed at discussing the Roe v Wade decision. He asked if the candidates could nominate a Supreme Court Justice who differs on their views. McCain seemed a little bit wary about answering the question raised, possibly because he has consistently followed party lines on abortion in the past. He repeated that he does not “do litmus tests,” but would make his choice with “strict adherence to the constitution, based on qualifications versus ideology.” Unlike McCain, Obama got straight to the point about his views stating, “Women are in the best position to make the decision.” He firmly believes that Roe v Wade was “rightly decided.” Even though both candidates insist that they would not “do litmus tests,” in regard to choosing a Supreme Court Justice, it is easier said than done. A president wants to ensure that most, if not all, appointees will ultimately favor rulings that somewhat match their ideologies and political views. I find it highly unlikely that those two factors would be completely unacknowledged when deciding. The candidates were rather civil when talking about abortion, but they were some heated moments when President Bush and negatives attack ads were brought up.
Unlike the last two debates, the candidates produced a hefty volume of attacks intended to throw the other one off. When addressing negative campaign advertising, both candidates agreed that the opposing party has been guilty of producing this type of propaganda. Obama even made an erratic statement that one hundred percent of John McCain’s advertisements have consisted of negative attacks. McCain maintained his defensive demeanor throughout the whole debate, especially when questioned about his past positions on budgets and taxes. At one point, McCain displayed his turbulent side when Obama accused him for voting in favor of 4 out of 5 of Bush’s budgets. “Senator Obama, I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against him you should have four years ago.” Overall, Obama appeared to be more poignant, calm, and elaborate when it came to answering questions, in the midst of his opponent’s accusatory remarks. McCain seemed to get quite perturbed, a bit combative, and visibly upset. This was McCain’s opportunity to turn his campaign around as he trails behind Obama in the polls. I do think he that he appealed to his loyal followers; I suspect he did not prove himself or relay his message to the undecided American voter, in the time he was allotted.
Post-debate commentaries were everywhere in the media. An article written by New York Times author Jim Rutenberg, “Candidates Clash over Character and Policy,” focuses on Obama and McCain’s demeanor and overall performance. I found that what I perceived was pretty spot-on with what Rutenburg observed and writes in his article. He makes an accurate statement when pointing out the fact that this debate was “by far the most spirited and combative of their encounters this fall.” Rutenberg notes that their demeanors were incredibly opposite, much like what we have seen in the past. “Mr. Obama maintained a placid and at times bemused demeanor,” While McCain was “at times showing anger and at others a methodical determination to make all his points.” Self-presentation and the art of impromptu speaking seemed to be the greatest factors in determining the winner of the final debate.
Rutenburg also addresses the greatest distraction that took place during the debate. The mention of Joe Wurzelbacher, a plumber from Ohio who Obama said had approached him at a rally, asking him about his plan to tax small businesses. The mention of Joe approximately two dozen times proved to be overkill. “The plumber came up directly or indirectly 24 times during the debate, an Everyman symbol of the divide between candidates on how best to address the economy.” Rutenburg found that Obama and McCain were least elaborate in the area of economics. He explains that when moderator Schieffer asked what would have to be postponed or cut from their initial financial plans since the collapse of the U.S. Stock Market, “neither man went very far, though Mr. McCain perhaps offered a more detailed list. Repeating his pledge of an across-the-board spending cut.” Rutenburg insinuates that the debate, which touched on a “wide variety of issues,” seemed to end in Obama’s favor.
Post-debate polls and the volume of roars produced at the U of M suggest that Obama won the final debate. I believe he won for a couple of different reasons. He seemed to manage his differences on the issues with more composure than McCain. He also spoke to his middle-class constituents with more promise and unwavering conviction. This debate was undeniably McCain’s best, but the real question is, did he gain enough attention and trust to decrease the margins and pull ahead near Obama? I don’t believe so, but the only accurate measure we have is the result of November’s general election.

Rutenburg, Jim. "Candidates Clash Over Character and Policy." The New York Times. 16 Oct 2008: A1.

"The Third Presidential Debate." Election Guide 2008. 15 Oct 2008. The New York Times. 27 Oct 2008 .

Election day photo log

2008-11-04T16:47:00.003-06:00

A Surge on One Channel, a Tight Race on Another

2008-11-03T20:07:00.006-06:00

November 2, 2008

By JIM RUTENBERG

WASHINGTON — It was a lousy day to be Senator John McCain, Keith Olbermann informed his viewers on MSNBC on Thursday.

Senator Barack Obama’s surge in the polls was so strong he was competitive in Mr. McCain’s home state, Arizona. The everyman hero of Mr. McCain’s campaign, “Joe the Plumber,” failed to make an expected appearance at a morning rally in Defiance, Ohio, and the senator’s efforts to highlight Mr. Obama’s association with a professor tied to the P.L.O. were amounting to nothing.

Wait a minute ... not so fast. Click.

Things were looking up for Mr. McCain, Sean Hannity and Greta Van Susteren told their viewers on Fox News Channel on Thursday. He got a boost at an afternoon rally in Sandusky, Ohio, from none other than Joe the Plumber, who announced his intention to vote for “a real American, John McCain”; he was gaining new ground in ever-tightening polls, despite the overwhelming bias against him in the mainstream news media; and Mr. Obama’s association with a professor sympathetic to the P.L.O. was now at “the center of the election.”

On any given night, there are two distinctly, even extremely, different views of the presidential campaign offered on two of the three big cable news networks, Fox News Channel and MSNBC, a dual reality that is reflected on the Internet as well.

On one, polls that are “tightening” are emphasized over those that are not, and the rest of the news media is portrayed as papering over questions about Mr. Obama’s past associations with people who have purportedly anti-American tendencies that he has not answered. (“I feel like we are talking to the Germans after Hitler comes to power, saying, ‘Oh, well, I didn’t know,’ ” Ann Coulter, the conservative commentator, told Mr. Hannity on Thursday.)

On the other, polls that show tightening are largely ignored, and the race is cast as one between an angry and erratic Mr. McCain, whose desperate, misleading campaign has as low as a 4 percent chance of beating a cool, confident and deserving Democratic nominee in Mr. Obama. (“He’s been a good father, a good citizen, he’s paid attention to his country,” Chris Matthews, the MSNBC host, said Wednesday night in addressing those who might be leaning against Mr. Obama based on race. “Give the guy a break and think about voting for him.”)

And, perhaps unsurprisingly, each campaign is often at war against its television antagonist, just as the networks are at war with each other.

It is a political division of news that harks back to the way American journalism was through the first half of the 20th century, when newspapers had more open political affiliations. But it has never been so apparent in such a clear-cut way on television, a result of market forces and partisan sensibilities that are further chipping away at the post-Watergate pre-eminence of a more dispassionate approach.

The more objective approach came as the corporate owners of the networks pushed for higher profits and the newspaper industry consolidated and sought broader audiences. “To sell as many copies as you could to as many people as you could, you became what we considered objective,” said Richard Wald, a professor of media and society at Columbia University School of Journalism and a former senior vice president at ABC News.

Fox News Channel was founded 12 years ago with an argument that the mainstream news media were biased toward liberals and that nonliberals were starved for a “Fair and Balanced” television antidote by day and openly conservative-leaning opinion by night. But it was only in the last couple of years that MSNBC, long struggling for an identity and lagging, established itself as a liberal alternative to Fox News Channel in prime time, finding improved ratings in the mistrust of the mainstream media that had grown among on the left during the Bush years and the Iraq war.

The presidential campaign, and the partisan and ideological intensity surrounding it, has been the perfect subject for both sides, providing endless fodder to play to the persuasions of their audience and mock the views expressed on the rival network.

The result is a return to a “great tradition of American journalism,” Mr. Wald said. “Basically you chose your news outlet if it made you happy, if it reinforced all your views.”

Indeed, voters who primarily get their news from Web sites like The Huffington Post by day and MSNBC by night, and those who primarily get theirs from The Drudge Report by day and Fox News Channel by night would have entirely different views of the candidates and the news driving the campaign year. (At second place in the ratings, behind Fox News Channel, CNN is maintaining a far more traditional approach to news this year.)

When Politico.com reported on Oct. 21 that the Republican National Committee had spent $150,000 on clothing for Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, Mr. Olbermann interrupted his 8 p.m. program on MSNBC to promote the story and discuss it, as did Rachel Maddow, whose program follows.

Fox News Channel reported it first the next morning, on “Fox & Friends,” in a segment in which the report was described as sexist and unfair, and Bill O’Reilly and Ms. Van Susteren later criticized the news media on their programs for giving it as much attention as they had.

“It was ridiculous,” said Mr. O’Reilly, singling out The New York Times in particular for covering the purchase.

That was a role reversal from spring 2007, when news broke that former Senator John Edwards had paid $400 for a haircut out of his Democratic presidential campaign account.

Mr. Olbermann named Mr. Hannity the “Worst Person in the World,” a running feature on his program, for making fun of Mr. Edwards’s haircut and showing video of him styling his hair before an interview.

Mr. O’Reilly had said of Mr. Edwards at the time: “He runs around telling Americans the system is rigged, while paying $400 for a haircut. This guy is a one-man sitcom.”

Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism at the Pew Research Center, said, “To some extent, they are reverse images of each other.”

The group has studied the tone and content of the election-year coverage and found that Mr. McCain has been the subject of more negative reports in general than has Mr. Obama on issues that include assessments of their performances in polls, the debates and running their campaigns.

But within that universe, the study found, the share of positive reports on Mr. McCain at Fox News was above the average of the news media at large, and the share of negative reports about Mr. Obama was higher, too. (The study found that the mix of positive and negative was roughly equal for them on Fox.)

And the study found that MSNBC featured a higher percentage of negative reports about Mr. McCain than the rest of the news media and a higher share of positive reports about Mr. Obama. CNN was more generally in line with the average.

Mr. Rosenstiel said Fox News Channel and MSNBC showed ideological differences, “obviously more so at night.” And executives at those networks said that opinion was kept to their prime-time lineups and away from their news reporting.

Officials at the Obama and McCain campaigns said in interviews last week that they believed they were treated fairly by the reporters assigned to them at the two networks, including Major Garrett and Carl Cameron at Fox News Channel and Kelly O’Donnell and Lee Cowan at NBC News. (NBC pools some political newsgathering efforts with The New York Times.) And advisers to both campaigns show up for interviews on both networks.

Mr. Obama’s campaign aides said they were pleased when Shepard Smith, the Fox News Channel anchor, this week dressed down Joe the Plumber, a k a Samuel J. Wurzelbacher, for agreeing with a voter who called a vote for Mr. Obama “a vote for the death of Israel.”

Reporting that Mr. Obama supported Israel, Mr. Smith added with exasperation, “It just gets frightening sometimes.”

And Ms. Maddow has expressed skepticism about Mr. Obama’s call for more troops in Afghanistan.

But officials at both campaigns also said there had been plenty of instances when they have perceived bias in regular news coverage. On Fox News Channel, for instance, Gregg Jarrett, referring to Mr. Obama, asked a guest, “Do economists say that in fact his policies could drive a recession into a depression?” (The guest, Donald Lambro of The Washington Times, responded, “Well, I haven’t read that, no.”)

Raising a report about Obama campaign suspicions that Mr. McCain got an unfair peek at questions to be asked of him at a joint forum at the Saddleback Church, Mr. McCain’s campaign wrote to NBC News in August, “We are concerned that your news division is following MSNBC’s lead in abandoning nonpartisan coverage of the presidential race.”

And sometimes the approaches have been noticeable simply through what the networks cover. After NPR reported late last week that a McCain supporter, former Secretary of State Lawrence S. Eagleburger, questioned whether Ms. Palin was “prepared to take the reins of the presidency,” MSNBC repeated it roughly 20 times over the course of the day, CNN mentioned it four times, a review of programming on the monitoring service ShadowTV found. And Fox News Channel did one segment, in which it interviewed Mr. Eagleburger, who apologized and said Ms. Palin was “a quick study.”

Fox News Channel executives would not comment for this article. Phil Griffin, president of MSNBC, agreed that at night his network gave a decidedly opinionated viewpoint.

“All of our material is based on fact — our guys work really hard on it, and the point-of-view shows make their conclusions,” Mr. Griffin said. “In this modern era, you’ve got a variety of places that look at the day’s events. Some you respect more than others, others you recognize as having a point of view, some you see as factual in a different way, and it all blends together into how you make your decision for what’s going on.

“The burden is a little more on the individual.”

This article originally appeared on the website of the New York Times.

Obama's Grandmother

2008-11-03T20:07:00.004-06:00

Obama has come out and said that his grandmother has died today. She was a huge supporter for Obama across the country. This poor tragedy doesnt influence me at all to vote for Obama, I am still undecided, and it's very possible I will do a write-in vote for JOSH PETERSON
(I believed). Do you think his grandmother passing away will have any sympathy votes for Obama from the many undecided?

Early Voting

2008-10-30T14:27:00.002-05:00

This year there has been a record number of early votes. Although McCain has a slight lead in Florida, Obama has the edge in battleground states like North Carolina and Ohio. With the way things are going now, McCain needs these states in order to win this election. The Republican committee has been targeting voters that don't usually vote in elections to get out and vote this year. Is this a good way to try and win in these battleground states? Will enough Republicans vote on Election Day?

Mediated Event

2008-10-30T14:16:00.001-05:00

On October 15^th, 65.5 million Americans tuned in to watch the third and final presidential debate of the 2008 election (O’Callaghan). Each person came away with distinct impressions. Some called the debate “spirited” while others considered the debate to be a “disappointment” (Rutenberg; “The Last Debate”). Some felt that the debate was John McCain at his best; others resolved that Barack Obama outperformed him. Comments have critiqued and described nearly every aspect of the debate from Obama’s tax policy to McCain’s persistent blinking. Although no impression is wrong, each account fails to capture the true spirit of watching the event.

I had my own impressions going into the final presidential debate. In the week leading up to the event, Barack Obama gained a more definite lead in the polls. In order to boost his own campaign, John McCain relied on casting doubt in Obama’s capabilities as President. The debate played out like a sports game between archrivals John McCain and Barack Obama. Moderator Bob Schieffer served as referee, doling out the ball to be wrestled for amongst the two opposing teams. It was a fierce and close match between competitors, yet heading into the second half, team McCain made a foul that cost him the game.

From the start, the debate was much more intense than previous debates. Obama and McCain laid out their positions and were quick to argue and question one another. McCain stated that Obama did nothing to repudiate attacks made by Congressman John Lewis that had been “so hurtful.” Obama responded that 100% of McCain’s ads have been negative, which led into an “it’s true, it’s not true” dispute.

However, as the debate progressed, McCain turned the event into a time slot for personal attacks on Obama. McCain associated Obama with William Ayers, “an old washed up terrorist,” and ACORN, an activist group that has been accused of voter registration fraud. While discussing free trade with Colombia, McCain commented that Obama would have to travel there in order to “understand it a lot better.” Obama appeared calm and confident, smiling or nodding his head during McCain’s comments. While Obama could have easily attacked McCain in return for the personal attacks that were made against him, he resisted. Obama clarified the attacks made against him before referring back to the issue at hand. McCain is responsible for straying from the issues and turning the debate into an attack. He put too much focus in ridiculing Obama and thus, McCain ruined his own image. Obama put it bluntly that “the fact that this has become such an important part of your campaign, Senator McCain, says more about your campaign than it says about me.”

An article from the Washington Post describes the presidential debate in an entirely different manner. “The Last Debate: John, Barack, and Joe the Plumber, on the Future of the Country” sees the debate as a replay of the candidates’ different viewpoints, mentioning the discussion on free trade, governing agendas, and abortion. The article notes that despite moderator Bob Schieffer’s suggestion to “tell the people tonight some things that they haven’t heard,” both Barack Obama and John McCain failed to do so. It brings up Obama’s disappointing response to prioritizing and making adjustments based on the economic circumstances in the country. According to the article, Obama listed off everything that he thought was important but failed to really answer the question. In what could have been an interesting debate, the “fireworks fizzled” and left viewers feeling like “jurors in an interminable trial” (“The Last Debate”).

My impressions of the debate versus the impressions given in the article are clearly contrasting opinions. Whereas I found the debate to be heated and full of personal attacks, the article describes the debate as disappointing. My impressions are opinionated and favor one candidate over another; the article gives an opinion without taking a definite position. Neither account is wrong; they come from different purposes and experiences in watching the debate. After gathering with fellow college students, my purpose in watching the debate was not so much to hear the candidates reiterate their positions on domestic policy, but to root for my candidate and boo and critique the opponent. The people I watched the debate with shaped and emphasized some of my overall impressions. While it would have been difficult to not notice John McCain’s blinking, seeing other people poke fun of him made it a more memorable part of my impressions of the debate.

A journalist’s perspective will be much more objective going into the debate. While my opinions will be shared in a casual setting amongst classmates and friends, his or her impressions will be published. The more biased an article appears to be, the less credibility it will be given. Thus, in order to represent the Washington Post as a credible source of information, the article makes the opinion that the debate was “disappointing,” yet is careful not to take sides.

My impression, the account given in “The Last Debate,” and any other account of the debate are all limited in how much can be conveyed to others. It would be impossible to describe everything that occurred in the final presidential debate. In describing the debate, all witnesses are forced to omit some information. A reader is then provided an incomplete description. Furthermore, all accounts lack the emotions associated with watching the debate. Words are limited and can only give so much insight into the event. No matter how often someone describes McCain’s incessant blinking, without seeing it in context a person cannot know the ridiculousness of it all. Words fail to capture the spirit and excitement from witnessing the event. In order to truly understand the presidential debate, or any event for that matter, one must see it to believe it.

Works Cited

“The Last Debate: John, Barack, and Joe the Plumber, on the Future of the Country.” Editorial. Washington Post. 16 Oct. 2008: A.18.

O’Callaghan, John. “Final McCain-Obama debate had 56.5 million viewers.” Washington

Post. 16 Oct. 2008. 27 Oct. 2008 .

Rutenberg, Jim. “Candidates Clash Over Character and Policy.” New York Times. 16 Oct 2008: A.19.

Differing Debate Deductions

2008-10-30T11:39:00.000-05:00

The final presidential debates took place on October 15th and left the American public with varying opinions of the candidates, their campaigns, and this election in general. My personal expectations and opinions certainly differed in some respect from two major news corporations, the LA Times and the New York Times; as did the aspects of the debate that I found to be most important. This is a historic election, and as such, it is especially important this year that we look at all sides of the story to understand how different opinions can affect the election in November.
I expected this debate to be something that would have a profound impact on the upcoming election. I predicted that it would be vital for McCain to do an outstanding job in the final debate in order to pull ahead in the polls. And although I still feel that the debates had an impact on the election I don’t think it was nearly as profound as I had expected it to be. I also feel that McCain did not do nearly a good enough job to pull himself into the lead. He made numerous speaking mistakes such as calling Senator Obama “Senator Government” (McCain), and making references to Sarah Palin’s child having Down syndrome, when he actually has autism; McCain simply did not win me over. For me this debate was much more about whose character shines the brightest, because when it’s this close to the election people simply are not voting on the issues, they are voting on the person. Barack Obama was the clear winner in the final debate, regardless of who had the better talking points, and whose economic bail out plan I might agree with; I believe Obama did a better job of addressing the questions and speaking before America. I found the Senators responses to “Why is your economic plan better than your opponents?”(Schieffer) to be of the utmost importance in this final debate. McCain, with the initial response to the question told us, rather than stating his plan for action, that “Americans are hurting right now, they are hurting and they are angry” (McCain). This is a statement that I think both senators could easily agree with, however their opinions differed when it came to “…who do we want to cut taxes for?”(Obama). Obama stated his plan once again, about going through the national spending plan line by line and lowering taxes for the middle class, whilst McCain attacked Obama but failed to give us a clear answer for what he was going to do. With our economic situation in this country the way it is, the responses that the senators gave to this first question are, in my opinion, key in determining who will better lead the U.S. through its economic woes.
A New York Times analysis of the debate between the U.S. presidential hopefuls differed in many respects from my analysis on what issues were most important; however the New York Times analysis came to primarily the same conclusion that I did; “The burden was on McCain, and he couldn’t rise to the occasion.”( Healy). Their analysis focused a lot on the attack tactics of Senator McCain and the responses that Obama gave when being attacked, stating that “for a punch to make a difference, the punch needs to do something to its target — to rattle, to wound, or (best of all) cause the opponent to counterpunch in a self-defeating way”(Healy). The analysis found that McCain began the debate very well composed and comfortable, however as the debate went on he “seemed increasingly inconsistent and testy” (Healy). They found the good attack tactics by McCain to bring promise to the Republican Party because according to Stuart Stevens, a Republican media consultant and former adviser for Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, “Republicans want McCain to fight”. However the article also noted that “If Mr. Obama, on the defensive, showed a bit more vim, vigor and vinegar than he had in the previous debates, he also remained calm, cool and collected for the most part — showing survival skills that he learned in his brutal 16-month battle for the nomination against a tough inside fighter, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton”(Healy). The way that Obama countered McCain’s attacks was important because he entered the debate with an ever increasing lead; one that he intended to maintain based on his calm and collected performance during the final debate. The New York Times analysis of the debates further differed from my own in the questions that it found to be most significant to the debate. The article focused a lot of attention on the questions about when Obama had stood up to member of his own party and Senator Obama’s connection with William Ayers. Specifically, the article found McCain’s response to the way Obama responded to the question about standing up against members of his own party to be noteworthy. McCain stated, in response to Obama, “Senator Obama, your argument for standing up to leaders of your party isn’t very convincing” (McCain). This news source clearly found certain aspects of the debate to be of more importance than I did.
A second news source, with a different view of the debate is the L.A. Times. The L.A. Times certainly had the same expectations as I did going into the debate. The expectation that “John McCain came into the third and final presidential debate needing to somehow wrestle the campaign out of Barack Obama's arms”(Decker). It is significant to see that numerous news sources and I had the same expectations going into the debate because that shows us what the majority of Americans were looking for that night. It is also important to look at what was seen as the most important aspects of the debate. My opinions of what was most important during this final debate varied to some degree with the L.A. Times. They seemed to find that the most important part of this debate was the way that McCain reacted to Obama and how he attempted to form his attacks on Obama. The article stated that “he also spent precious minutes bickering over a domestic radical from the 1960s. He spoke of his desire to reach peaceably across the aisle, while at times exuding what seemed a barely controlled anger, his jaw clenched as he appeared to show disdain for his opponent” (Decker). The L.A. Times also found one of the key aspects of the debate to be the specific attacks that Senator McCain made on Obama and his connections with ACORN and William Ayers. McCain said, “All of the details need to be known about Sen. Obama's relationship with them and with ACORN, and the American people will make a judgment” (McCain).A final way that my views differed from those of this L.A. Times article is that the L.A. times did not see a clear winner. The article stated that, “If you like McCain, you probably thought he won, and if you like Obama, you probably thought he won”(Decker) and I certainly did.
Clearly there are differing views on how the debates went over and further differing views on what aspects of the debate were the most significant. I found the debate to go overwhelmingly in favor of Senator Obama and the way the Senators acted during the debates to be of the most important. I also felt that the question regarding the Senators economic plans for our country to the key point of the debate. However, my opinions differed in many ways from those of the New York Times and of the L.A. Times. Both of the articles analyses found the attack tactics of the candidates to be highly significant as well as the questions surrounding Senator Obama’s connections with William Ayers and ACORN, whereas I did not. These differing analyses of the debate go to show us that not everyone views events, political or otherwise, the same; and as such it is important to compare ones own experience to those of others in order to better understand what really went on.

The Last Straw

2008-10-29T23:03:00.000-05:00

The evening of October 15, 2008 concluded the final presidential debate of the 2008 election. Many citizens around the United States have made up their decision of whom to vote for, making this debate focused toward the few swing voters remaining.
Republican Senator, John McCain, made his last push towards the middle-class Americans by referring to “Joe the Plummer” saying “Joe wants to buy the business he has been in for all these years, worked 10, 12 hours a day. And he (Senator Obama) wanted to buy the business but he looked at your tax plan and he saw that he was going to pay much higher taxes…Now Senator Obama talks about the rich, very rich. Joe, I want to tell you, I’ll not only help you buy that business that you worked your whole life for and be able – and I’ll keep your taxes low and provide available and affordable health care for you and your employees.”
Barack Obama responded “What I’ve said is that I want to provide a tax cut for 95 percent of working Americans, 95 percent. If you make more – if you make less than a quarter of a million dollars a year, then you will not see your income tax go up, your capital gains go up, your payroll tax. Not one dime. And percent of working families, 95 percent of you out there will get a tax cut.”
There is no doubt that America is in the largest financial crisis in recent history. Tax cuts would serve a relief for many families throughout the country. I think Obama made a good
statement when implying that independent studies proved that his tax relief plan for the middle-class families was better than Senator McCain’s.
CNN News claimed the true winner of the debate to be Joe Wurzelbacher, informally known as “Joe the Plumber”, an Ohio plumber who is about to purchase a plumbing company. Overall, I believe that the last debate was a stalemate, in terms of who won. The debate consisted mainly of economic topics; fitting considering the economic stand in America. McCain wants to stop deficit spending completely. Obama says deficit spending freeze just won’t work. The United States apparently doesn’t take in enough money to keep itself out of debt. In that case, cutting deficit spending wouldn’t make a difference. We need to continue to use deficit spending in order to keep with other countries in technology, economy, etc.
One question that was not directly related to economics was “Why would the country be better off if your running mate became president rather than his running mate?” This question intrigued me the most because I was anxious to see what Senator McCain would say about his running mate Sarah Palin. Senator Obama mentioned his running mate Joe Biden to have been one of the finest public servants that has served this country. It’s hard not to like what Biden has to bring to the table. He comes from Scranton, fighting on behalf of working families, and knows what it’s like to see his father lose his job and go through an economic twister. Obama says that as a consequence, his persistent pattern throughout his career is to fight for the little guy. That’s what he has done relating to economic policies. He fights to do whatever he can to get the lower-class families a boost in the economy. Biden is a feature fit for the lower-class and middle-class. He has proven that he will work hard to make sure they see their benefits.
Following the discussion of Joe Biden was John McCain’s discussion of the highly touted Sarah Palin. I was anxious to hear what McCain would say about not just a possible predecessor of the President of the United States of America, as well as the Vice President, but the possible first woman president in the history of the United States of America. Senator McCain had quite the plethora of positive things Palin has done in her time as a government official. McCain stated “Americans know that she’s a role model to woman and other reformers all over America. She’s given money back to the taxpayers. She’s cut the size of government. She’s negotiated with the oil companies and faced them down, a $40 billion pipeline that’s going to relieve the energy needs of the United -- of what they call the lower 48.”
It’s hard not to support someone with the background of Sarah Palin. There has never been a woman that has stretched as far as she has into government positions, in particular the presidential election. I thought McCain focused too much on autism and how it relates to Palin. Autism is on the rise like he said, although upon the outlook of America financially, it’s indecisive to say that we need to put much of our focus and money into learning and trying to find the cure for it.
Bob Schieffer followed by asking Obama if he thought Palin was qualified to be a U.S. President. This was a question that had to be carefully answered by Obama. He couldn’t afford to respond with an answer that could have been portrayed as sexist or prejudice. I believed he answered it perfectly by saying it should be left up to the American people to decide if she’s capable. He said that she’s obviously more than capable and has excited a base in the Republican Party. I liked that Obama touched base on what I had said about the autism topic.
He said he wanted to point out autism and other special needs programs would cost additional funding if we were to take it to serious terms. Senator McCain believed that Biden was qualified by many rights but pointed out he’d been wrong on many foreign policy and national security issues. In the final debate of the election, I believe the last straw, or the final swing votes, didn’t go toward either candidate. The candidates went back and forth winning topics. As CNN News stated, “John McCain came out of the gate strong, but Barack Obama gained strength as the night progressed Wednesday in the final presidential debate where each candidate tried to convince voters that he is better equipped to steer the nation through these troubled times.”

The Great Debate of 2008

2008-10-29T23:00:00.000-05:00

The national media. The thoughts and responses of one Tyler Luhman. Which one of these is not like the other? To find out, I compared my initial thoughts on last Wednesday’s presidential debate to those of the national media—or in this case, one alternate source. Does the media skew the event in one direction or another? Do they become soft and avoid any possible accusations of bias? May the best man win, as the anticipated matchup between Tyler Luhman and the national media begins. Do your worst my friends—I will not go down without a fight.
After watching the debate, I thought the most important topic that was discussed was economics, and the debate on how we should fix our current economic crisis. Hardly anything else was mentioned over the course of the debate, and even if something else came up, the conversation quickly switched over to the economic side of things. The candidates were asked to state their economic plans, and then to compare their own plans to that of their opponent’s. One thing I noticed is that after a candidate described his plan, they failed to make any sort of comparison to the other candidate’s plan. In fact, disregard for the mediator’s questions occurred throughout the entire debate, with the candidates instead pursuing their own agendas by talking about what they wanted to talk about. This happened frequently, and at times mediator Bob Schieffer had to intervene and cut off the candidates—either they would completely avoid the question, or talk longer than the time allowed. Overall, both candidates seemed to avoid conflict at the beginning of the debate, but as time wore on, more and more personal attacks were brought to the table, with John McCain delivering a majority of the blows. Instead of analyzing the debate using what both candidates did as examples, it is easier to take a look at which each candidate did individually.
Senator John McCain’s performance during the debate was one heck of a roller coaster ride. At the start, McCain seemed unprepared and nervous, often repeating phrases such as ‘American Dream’ and ‘Joe the Plumber’. In my opinion, McCain’s strategy during the debate was to become personal with the American public by trying to be specific and attempting to relate to the middle class. In the early stages of the debate, McCain held off from attacking Barack Obama, instead he tried to make himself seem like the victim. He did this by citing instances where Obama’s campaign and its supporters falsely or unethically accused McCain of certain things. Over the course of the debate, though, McCain’s tone changed drastically. He began to attack Obama often, announcing that Obama would “spread the wealth” of Americans, and that he wanted the small business owners of America to suffer. McCain’s attacks turned harsher towards the end of the debate when he accused Obama of associating with Bill Ayers, a leader of a terrorist group in the 1960s. Also, McCain questioned Obama’s association with Acorn, a group which allegedly registers ineligible voters. McCain’s objective by bringing up these two organizations was to instill a connection between them and Obama in American minds. It did not really matter if the two groups were still associated with Obama or not because all McCain wanted to do was bring them up and the negative things they have done. McCain’s trip through the debate was an unconventional one, and in my opinion, his tactics ultimately failed. He started off slow, acting every bit of his age, showing nervousness and a lack of preparation. As time went on, McCain calmed down, and became smoother in his speaking. With the change in his demeanor came a change in his tactics as well. Instead of avoiding the attack, McCain chose to attack Obama on all fronts—a questionable tactic. Although McCain did recover and compose himself, he provided a poor image of himself by attacking too often.
Unlike John McCain, Senator Barack Obama’s performance throughout the debate was linear without much change at all. Compared to McCain, Obama was strong at the beginning of the debate, appearing comfortable and conversational. Although Obama seemed prepared, he still avoided answering many of the questions directly, and instead discussed unrelated material. To be fair, Obama’s main reason for avoiding the questions was to refute some of John McCain’s accusations against him. In my opinion, Obama did a great job defending himself from McCain’s attacks, appearing confident and comfortable in his refutations. When John McCain accused Obama of associating with 1960s radical Bill Ayers, Obama—without hesitation—denounced the claim saying that Ayers had never been involved with the campaign, and that he never will be involved. Obama almost seemed to know the attacks were coming, and he was confident and prepared in his responses. My overall impression of Obama was that he seemed cool and collected throughout the entire debate—which is of the greatest importance in a televised event. Even if Obama’s policies and stances were sub-par compared to those of McCain, it wouldn’t matter, because appearance and demeanor means everything in publically televised events like these. Because of this, Obama ‘won’ the debate, appearing much calmer than his opponent on the national stage.

Compared to the National Media’s Opinion

“US presidential debate: John McCain fails to dent Barack Obama's lead” (Spillius).

The title of Alex Spillius’ article sums up his thoughts in one line—although he tried, John McCain failed to change the status quo by the end of Wednesday’s presidential debate. Spillius’ article centers on topics such as Joe the Plumber, Bill Ayers, and the Acorn community group. The article references John McCain’s harsh tactics towards the end of the debate, including his accusations of Obama associating with Bill Ayers and Acorn. Spillius gives information regarding McCain’s tactics, saying that his approach “seemed to have backfired, with snap opinion polls by US television networks all scoring a large victory for Mr. Obama” (Spillius). The overall focus of Spillius’ article is on McCain and how he attempted—but failed—to make a comeback in the national polls. The article is unbiased, and presents an honest opinion of the results through analysis and summarization.
I agree with a majority of what the article describes as the main parts of the debate, although I feel Spillius left out some important information. McCain’s nervous demeanor in the beginning of the debate is not described, and as a result of this, the reader is not provided with a clear description of what happened. In my opinion, he does this to not appear one-sided, and lose his objectivity. This is understandable, because it is important to appear non-partisan in the national media, so even though I think McCain’s appearance should have been included; it makes sense why it isn’t.
After comparing my reaction to the debate to that of the media’s, there didn’t seem to be many differences. The lasting image of the debate is obviously McCain and how he performed, and he became the centerpiece of both Spillius’ and my analysis. The main difference between my reaction and Spillius’ is that I was able to be partisan if I so wished, while he wasn’t. The inability to be biased almost limits the national media into providing a loose summary of the event, without being able to (sometimes) accurately report a story. As a result of this comparison, it is now my belief that in certain cases opinion articles may be more reliable than articles from the national media. The belief differs from my previous belief that opinion articles were all nonsense, while I put my trust into the national media. I am glad this experiment has opened my eyes to alternate ways to receive the news, and this may be the only time I can say that opinions overpower the facts.

Election Day

2008-10-29T14:20:00.002-05:00

With Election day in less then a week, people are getting very excited. The ridiculous amount of advertising will finally be over and more importantly we will have a new president! I'm just wondering how everyone else is feeling about this historic campaign coming to an end...

Some shots of the assembly . . .

2008-10-29T10:53:00.003-05:00

2008-10-28T11:01:00.001-05:00

Media Coverage in the Presidential Election

On October 15th, 2008 the third and final debate between Democratic candidate Barack Obama and Republican Candidate John McCain took place at Hofstra University in New York. My entire freshman seminar class gathered to watch the debate at the University of Minnesota. We watched the debate on a large projection screen in Wimbley Hall. The point of all of this was to observe people as the debate was taking place and try to sense a certain feeling in the room. Our class was joined by only a handful of other people, so our experience didn’t turn out as we thought it would. I wrote a brief paragraph on what I thought were the main points of the debate were before I was told by news stations such as CNN or FoxNews what was important in the debate. Media coverage influences voters by putting the most important issues, according to them, on the forefront of shows like “The O’Reilly Factor” or “Larry King Live.” The different news stations focus on only issues that they choose to cover or what they believe is newsworthy.
When I sat down and decided what the most important issues were I concluded that the economy was the most important. The state of our economy is the worst that it has been since the Great Depression. That night, the DOW Jones Industrial fell almost 800 points, which is the second biggest fall in a single day, and neither candidate mentioned the stock market demise. Almost everyone will agree with me by saying that the economy needs to be improved in the next term. The candidates debated on only the main topics in the hour and a half that was provided. Most of the topics ended up coming back to either the economy or Joe the Plumber. Both McCain and Obama failed to answer questions completely. For example Obama and McCain were both asked where they would cut funding if they were elected into office, and both responded by saying what The United States needed to spend more on to solve other problems. At the beginning of the debate, I felt that McCain went on the offensive and pressed Obama about raising taxes and affiliations to Bill Ayers and ACORN. I thought the debate was somewhat childish, but in my opinion it helped McCain win his first of three debates. McCain was sharp, crisp, and had a great game plan to alienate Obama. The only flaw in McCain’s tactics was the reference to Joe the Plumber which became sickening by the end of the debate. After my reaction to the debate I wanted to see what the media had to say about the debate.
On “The O’Reilly Factor,” Bill O’Reilly discussed the economy for almost a full three minutes to open his show on the day after the debate. O’Reilly is sometimes criticized for being biased toward the Republican side when his show is suppose to be unbiased. O’Reilly says that “every hard working American lost the debate last night. Neither of the candidates addressed the collapse of our financial system.” O’Reilly frequently took shots at Barack Obama’s economic plan by saying it will put America more into debt by instituting government sponsored healthcare, 150 billion dollars for the energy crisis, 70 billion dollars for tax rebates, and another 18 billion for education. O’Reilly then explains, “If I were John McCain I would have bolted out of my chair and said ‘are you kidding me? Who is going to pay for all of that?’” Later in the show, O’Reilly explains that if Obama raises corporate taxes then they will raise prices, move to Bermuda, or fire workers. He even went as far as to say that Barack Obama’s economic plan is “insane.” “If John McCain were even half as mad as I am right now, he’d be President,” said O’Reilly at the end of his program.
On the homepage of the CNN website there is an advertisement for Barack Obama on the right side. It is a picture of him smiling and then white words rolling across the screen that say, “Help elect Barack Obama for president. Visit the official Barack Obama website now.” I know that anybody can buy an advertisement but it still seems that CNN has a bias toward Barack Obama, so by having an Obama advertisement rather than McCain it adds to the skepticism of CNN’s bias. A story on CNN news says that the candidates clashed over taxes, healthcare, abortion and issue number one: the economy. “However, McCain’s message did not resonate with a majority of the debate watchers surveyed by CNN, who said Obama would better handle the financial crisis, 56 percent to 35 percent.” Another article on the CNN website says McCain won in two categories. Eighty percent of debate watchers polled said, “McCain spent more time attacking his opponent,” while only seven percent said Obama spent more time on the attack. Fifty-four percent said, “McCain seemed more like a typical politician during the debate.” The reason the economy is the number one issue is that America is in such a large amount of debt and we are experiencing a recession at the same time. Every American wants change to happen quickly, but both candidates know that this recession will take more time than everyone expects.
The second most important issue to me in the debate was education. Education received little if any media coverage. The United States spends more per capita than any other country on education. By every international measurement, The United States trails most countries. College affordability for all students is another important issue. Obviously people that don’t have children and have already been to college do not care about this issue very much, which could contribute to the lack of media coverage. Each candidate has different plans to get education get off the ground. McCain would like to use vouchers, and not put any more money into the system. Obama, on the other hand, wants more money and more reform. They both agree that the teachers need to have better teaching themselves and higher pay for the system to succeed.
Media coverage influences voters by putting the most important issues, according to them, on the forefront of their programming. FoxNews seems to be more biased toward Senator John McCain while CNN is thought to be biased toward Senator Barack Obama. By paying close attention to both news channels anyone can see why they both are considered to be biased. By just incorporating their favored candidate in everyday news, it can influence the average American voter.

The Bradley Effect

2008-10-26T15:34:00.001-05:00

We discussed the Bradley Effect a little bit in class. Essentially the concept refers to Tom Bradley, a black man lost the 1982 California Governor's race even though he was ahead in some voter polls. The Bradley effect says that some voters tell pollsters that they are undecided or likely to vote for a black candidate, yet, on election day, vote for the white opponent.

What do you think about the Bradley Effect is a legitimate concern, especially with Obama appearing to be ahead in the polls right now?

This article warns about the Bradley Effect

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/13/obama.bradley.effect/

This one argues that the Bradley Effect does not need to be worried about

http://www.alternet.org/story/102188/

Who will win? You decide...

2008-10-22T15:14:00.003-05:00

On the CNN website there is an electoral map calculator. It is fun and interactive. You can click on the different states and see which way they voted in the past and decide which way you think they will vote this year. There's lots more to it, but you should check it out for yourself.

Here's the link:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/calculator/

Article on McCain robo calls

2008-10-18T15:14:00.001-05:00

I was just browsing the BBC's website and found an article on robo-calls the McCain campaign are apparently making.
Go to the link and listen:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/mccainrnc_robocall_questions_w.php

Crisis will Pass

2008-10-13T10:48:00.000-05:00

I agree with Jozie's last post. This crisis will eventually pass, even though it might not feel like it now. And if we elect a president based on the stock market, when the storm passes we might be left with someone incapable of running the country, or whose ideas do not match ours. I'm not backing any candidate in particular by writing this, only saying that we can't let this be the only factor we consider when we step behind the curtain to vote.

Policies left Unchallenged

2008-10-12T18:16:00.000-05:00

As the sup prime mortgage crisis grips America and the rest of the world time passes quickly by. The presidential election is only a month away and other issues are still waiting to be thoroughly discussed. The economic crisis will eventually pass and the other policies that the presidential candidates support will be left unchallenged. There are other issues that the American public is concerned worth as well. I’m not arguing that the economic crisis isn’t going to leave its mark on history; I believe that other issues should be at least given a little bit of room considering the election is less than a month away.

Worth Taking Seriously

2008-10-12T12:10:00.002-05:00

The subprime mortgage crisis has spawned into a global crisis, which has been described as, "the biggest market disruptions since the Great Depression", it has bankrupted Iceland, and even managed to slow the growth of China. Not only does the crisis concern the average American, it concerns most of the world.

A economic problem of this magnitude should be the primary focus of the media and the presidential candidates. Any economic disaster the can bankrupt another country and be compared to the Great Depression is certainly worth taking seriously even at the cost of other issues. Also what other issues are there to Americans other than the thickness of their billfolds? "It's the economy, stupid!" Iraq, global warming, gays, and the unborn can wait their turn.

Over Focused?

2008-10-12T11:44:00.006-05:00

The subprime mortgage crisis has dominated the political news over the past month, leaving other political issues at the way side. Is this focus driven by the media, public demand for it, or the gravity of the crisis?

Should voters insist that the presidential nominees address other issues or does the media have a responsibility to ask questions about issues other than the economic crisis?

Group 3-
Trevor Davis, Rick Dornfeld, Jozie Nummi, Abi Strait

Palin a Soccer Mom or a Symbol?

2008-10-05T23:33:00.002-05:00

Sara Palin seems to want to be identified as a soccer mom, a parent, and a government leader. Her point is summerised in the fact that she claims she is a middle class citizen. My question is, do we want a middle class citizen as a vice president?

"McCain is 72. He's had cancer 4 times."

2008-10-05T22:41:00.001-05:00

This attack ad is so ruthless CNN and MSNBC both refused to have it run on their station. Luckily, we have the internet:

Aftermath of the VP debates

2008-10-05T22:15:00.000-05:00

After veiwing the highly anticipated vice presidential debates we can now see the candidates in a slightly diffrent light. This was certianly an oppertunity to get to know Sarah Palin better. He deminer is something to be noted. She used many expressions during her speach such as "Joe six pack" "say it aint so Joe" and "dog gone it". These expressions may be used by her to realte to the American public and make her seem down to earth and home-townish. But did they do the job? Is this how America wants it's polititions to act? How did her performance during the debate affect how America veiws her?

"Heartless"

2008-10-01T20:12:00.002-05:00

The Washington Post campaign blog has an article about this ad, which is titled "Heartless." Any opinions on its effectiveness and its target. According to the Washington Post this ad is going to be run in Missouri, Northern Virginia, and Wisconsin.

VP Debate Set for Thursday

2008-10-01T15:51:00.003-05:00

I think that Thursday's debate holds much more excitement for many people than the Presidential debate. First of all, it is the only scheduled Vice Presidential debate. Both nominees have to be careful Thursday evening. After some not-so-good interviews, Palin has her work cut out for her. Some believe that the bar is set so low for her going into the debate that even a mediocre performance will be seen as a success. Meanwhile, Biden will be have to focus on strictly McCain and the issues- attacks on Palin and her qualifications will be seen as sexist remarks. Another interesting thing about the Vice Presidential debate- the McCain campaign fought and won to have a more structured debate than the free-flowing Presidential debate. There will not be time for any unpredictable questions; the debate will stick to the simple question and answer sessions between the moderator and candidates. Biden advisors were ok with either format. Does this show any concerns in the McCain campaign about Palin's debating abilities? Should they be concerned?

Takaki Speech

2008-09-30T22:16:00.002-05:00

I thought the Takaki speech was very delightful, it was certainly different than I expected. And I think it did shed light on this book, a work which could be considered fairly tedious. I thought it was inspiring to find out how committed Takaki is to these issues or race relations and multiculturalism. I also couldn't believe the story he told about losing his job because of his views. That kind of passion and commitment does not seem common today, as we live in a society that puts far to much value in tangible measure of success rather than in principles at times.

Vice Presidential Debate

2008-09-30T20:50:00.002-05:00

This Thrusday at 7pm a debate between vice presidential canidates Joe Biden and Sarah Palin will take place. This is a debate that I am personally very excited to see. I think that Palin has her work cut out for her to redeem herself after the Katie Couric interview. She has much more to prove then Biden in these debates. But Biden also must watch himself on Thursday evening because he definately does not want to come off as sexist by attacking the poor hockey mom. So I guess my question is what does everyone predict will be the outcome of the debate? Do you think Palin will surprise us all or will Biden be able to boost the Obama campaign without coming off as sexist?

Takaki's Speech

2008-09-30T20:05:00.002-05:00

I found Takaki's speech very intriguing. In his book he says that the book is meant to open the minds of Americans. His purpose for opening the minds of Americans really hit home for me when he discussed his experience at Wooster College. Secondly, his empathy and passion for all culturals really showed through in his speech. Most historians seem only to be focused on their race or culture that have been oppressed, in contrast Takaki studied several cultures and races in his book. The fact that Takaki critiqued his book and felt that events were missing is also interesting. He seemed to be open to criticism, yet confident in his work. His balance of self-criticism and self-confidence is hard to achieve. Furthermore his optimism for the future was surprising. He has studied and witnessed acts of discrimination that would appal any of us, but continues to have a positive outlook for the future. Lastly, the fact that he has written a new revised version shows that the issue of multiculturalism is still relevant today.
Overall I felt that his speech was intriging and relevant today. His empathy, perspective and attitude was refreshing to see considering his experiences and concentration of study.

Takaki in Review

2008-09-28T17:49:00.003-05:00

Berkeley Professor Ronald Takaki's presentation at Hamline Methodist was an especially lively (considering Takaki is 69 years old) extension of his book A Different Mirror: A History of Multicultural America.

Unfortunately for the audience, Takaki failed to really add anything substantive to what he wrote in the book. Takaki retaught his interpretations of Irish and Chinese immigration for the audience and answered a few questions that failed to leave much of an impression.

Takaki's sense of humor, which did not make an appearance in his book, made the evening more enjoyable by injecting a little more energy into his tired topic. Certainly a revisionist history of minority immigration to the United States would have been edgy and timely if the topic and presenter and had been newer.

The most enjoyable part of the evening was the story Takaki told about how he taught the first African-American history course at UCLA, which was ironic since Takaki is not black. Other than that the evening was a bit drab with the monotony of a tired topic.

Presidential Election Map

2008-09-25T23:58:00.000-05:00

<p><strong>><a href='http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008/pick-your-president/'>2008 Election Contest: Pick Your President</a></strong> - Predict the winner of the 2008 presidential election and enter to win a $500 prize.</p>

Importance of Endorsements

2008-09-21T23:48:00.002-05:00

Celebrity endorsements have been very popular recently in this presidential election. So many in fact, it is hard to keep them straight, but what affect do they really have on the voters? Well personally I think that has a lot to do with who and what you are paying attention to. Some of the celebrity endorsements will draw attention that the candidate may not have been able achieve on their own, but many more will only add to the chaos and confusion. The most that these endorsements will do is make the general public take a second look at what these candidates stand for. And some may not even be able to do that. It is obvious that a celebrity the caliber of talk show host Oprah Winfrey, who is endorsing Barack Obama, will draw more helpful attention then Boston Red Sox player Curt Schilling, who is endorsing John McCain. So is it true that all endorsements are created equal? Or are there some that will prove to be much more significant for the candidates in the last stretch of this election?

The Impact of Celebrity Endorsements

2008-09-21T21:50:00.004-05:00

Everytime I turn on the news..another celebrity is proclaiming who they're endorsing for President. My question is...What impact do celebrities have on the general public? Josh and I were discussing this, and we've concluded that celebrities most likely have little impact on the ultimate vote of the majority. Other more powerful factors include, but are not limited to: party affiliation, general ideologies, family's affiliation, and one's socio-economic background. But a positive aspect of celebrity endorsements is the money that is given and allocated towards the candidate's campaign. Just last weekend, Barbara Streisand was featured in a concert/fundraiser, among other celebrities, that raised a fair amount of money for Barack Obama. So what's your take? Do you think that celebrities have any significant impact on one's vote?

Obama Endorsers: Matt Damon, George Clooney, Oprah Winfrey, Tom Hanks, Scarlet Johansson, Lindsay Lohan, Madonna, Barbara Streisand, Hulk Hogan, Sean Penn, Jean-Claude Van Damm, Kim Kardashian, Nelly, Bruce Springsteen, Kanye West, Ben Affleck, Charlize Theron, Sheryl Crow, Michael Moore

McCain Endorsers: Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Steve Forbes, Kelsey Grammar, Angie Harmon/ Jason Sehorn, Heidi Montag, Clint Eastwood, The Hiltons, Gretchen Wilson, Leann Rimes, Charlie Daniels, Sammy Hagar

Some Web Links:
http://www.forbes.com/2007/10/17/forbes-tracker-celebs-oped-cx_daa_1017celebs.html
http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?artid=%7CcyY%7CdgbWuU=&Title=Obama+has+more+stars+than+McCain&SectionID=oHSKVfNWYm0=&MainSectionID=oHSKVfNWYm0=&SectionName=VfE7I/Vl8os=&SEO=

Celebrity Endorsements

2008-09-21T20:42:00.002-05:00

Celebrity endoresements? Do they really have an affect on what we wear, buy, or where we go? With some of our most popular brands being those that sport a celebrity's name, it is easy to see how one could make this assumption. But can celebrities really affect how we vote? It is scary to think that a Hollywood star could really influence who we think is suitable to run our country. The McCain and Obama campaign strategy proves that this is a legitment concern on the campaign trail. The McCain campaign has tried to attach a negative conotation to the word celebrity by trying to discredit Obama, by calling him a one in a number of his ads. The campaign even goes so far as to compare Obama to Paris Hilton. On the otherside, Obama refused to let Lindsay Lohan officially endorse him, probably out of fear of bad press. Here are a few examples of "celebrity status" being used to endorse or discredit a canditate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6urw_PWHYk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmFrBaskrlQ
Do you think celebrity endorsements are a key player in this election?

McCain Ad

2008-09-17T18:09:00.002-05:00

Just so all of you know this is MY ad that I am doing for our ad-watch assignment, but you all have to see it! http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/2008 It is one of the last ones and it is under "education." This ad is absolutely false and a low blow by the McCain campaign. I know I shouldn't say this but it is also kind of amusing.

Palin vs Biden?

2008-09-14T22:48:00.000-05:00

One of the things I’ve found interesting over this past month is the attention the media pays to the nomination of Sarah Palin for vice president in comparison to the attention paid to Joe Biden. As far as I can tell, Sarah Palin is generating a lot more talk and press. This begs the question- why? I suppose the most obvious answer is that she’s a woman. Or that people are confused why McCain chose her. But I also wonder if, because of Obama’s popularity, no one was very interested in who he ended up choosing. I would love to hear what everyone else thinks about this, because I’ve been thinking about it for a while!

VP influence

2008-09-14T18:16:00.000-05:00

I believe that the VP nominee has had very little influence in the past elections. Considering that this election is historic more attention is being paid to the VP nominees. In addition presidential nominees choose VP nominees that compliment their weaknesses. Because each candidate is being scrutinized more, each VP nominee is being scrutinized more. The more people that pay attention to the election, the more news coverage each candidate gets. Therefore, the more attention that VP candidate receives the more news coverage and influence the candidate has.

One Fish, Two Fish, Old Fish, New Fish

2008-09-14T16:32:00.000-05:00

According to RealClearPolitics, John McCain has 2.1% lead in the polls over Barack Obama. While this is a statistical tie between the two candidates it still marks a significant change in the polls. Two weeks ago, Obama had a 4.5% lead in the poll, but more significantly is the decline of his image. Obama has lost his edge in favorable rating and at the same time McCain has seen his likeability increase.

What happened just a little over two weeks ago? -Sarah Palin appeared on the scene. Sarah Barracuda, as she is known up in Alaska, has torn up Obama and cause a backlash against liberals, which has sparked McCain's recent rise.

The Barracuda has had a few mistakes such as her gaffe on national television. Republicans should probably know what the Bush Doctrine is before going on TV. Regardless of this mistake, Palin has been an uncanny choice because she is doing an excellent job at the vice-President's most important role: getting the Presidential candidate elected.

Palin is certainly not the first vice-Presidential candidate to fill this role. Dan Quayle went after Bill Clinton in 1992 by asking voters, "Do you really believe Bill Clinton will tell the truth?" and "Do you trust Bill Clinton to be your president?"While this was part of a losing effort to get George H.W. Bush re-elected, these questions certainly did nothing to enhance Clinton's character.

Spiro Agnew was Richard Nixon's henchman and attacked Nixon's critics with many colorful phrases. Agnew claimed to speak for the "silent majority" and attacked the media as "nattering nabobs of negativism." Agnew energized the conservative base and helped get Nixon elected and re-elected.

Vice-Presidential candidates make great weapons because then the Presidential candidate can distance himself from the attacks, but still reap their benefits. And as long as Sarah Barracuda continues to feast on the Democratic chum, John McCain will continue enjoy leads in the polls.

Rick is a college student at Hamline University and is also the editor of another blog, Intelligent-Thoughts, which focuses on politics and current events.

Group 3 Topic

2008-09-12T19:16:00.000-05:00

The significance of the Vice President has come under discussion, because of the upcoming election. We decided to discuss the influence the VP has on elections and if the upcoming election is an exception.

Not the most serious commentary

2008-09-10T15:54:00.001-05:00

A couple of links to the Daily Mail on the Reuplican VP pick:

"I'd vote for Vice president Barbie"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1051985/Id-vote-Vice-president-Barbie.html

"How I became wannabe U.S. Vice President Sarah Palin for the day... and, gee, I feel great"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1054101/How-I-wannabe-U-S-Vice-President-Sarah-Palin-day--gee-I-feel-great.html

The view from England

2008-09-10T15:03:00.000-05:00

All right, it would be a little presumptuous of me to claim to have my finger on the pulse of the British people. I've been here less than 48 hours and a lot of that time I was trying to sleep off my jet lag. Nevertheless, I have a couple of "data points," for what they're worth. I was entertained by the Daily Mail on the flight to Manchester. Admittedly, it's a right wing tabloid, but it has a huge readership. The headline on one of the columns went something like, "We need a pit-bull with lipstick." The upshot was that the political establishment both in America and the UK has ignored ordinary people who work hard and raise families and don't necessarily fit into any of the categories that the demographers have boxed people into. The writer, a woman incidentally, loves Palin. She thinks a tough woman is just what we need now and has no qualms about her lack of experience. The other perspective came from a woman I met at this conference on "Women Activists in the Aftermath of the First World War." She said that McCain's choice of Palin was just a way to get back at Hilary. I'm not sure what the motivation would be there since Hilary is out of the race, but I guess the gist is that it's a somewhat cynical move to grab as many Clinton supporters who are still angry or want a woman no matter what.
I'll try to get some more opinions, but frankly, I'm a little surprised that the election is not a bigger deal here. The Daily Telegraph (a "quality" broadsheet, still conservative) has no commmentary on the election today, but the headline on a news article is "Obama targets seven swing states as dreams of landslide fade." Also British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is being criticized for making statements in favoring Obama.

Well that's the news from over the pond. I'll see if I can find a link to the Daily Mail column and if I do I'll post it later.

By the way, I'm enjoying your posts, but hope to see some more discussion. Take some strong positions!

Hurricane Gives McCain Chance to Connect With Religious Right

2008-09-07T21:55:00.000-05:00

With Hurricane Gustav's landfall expected to happen on the same day as the beginning of the Republican National Convention, John McCain was given an opportunity: to connect with the more religious Republicans. While a large part of George W. Bush's politics were related to his religion, McCain has not been portrayed as a very religious man. In addition to this, McCain has strongly criticised Bush in the past, specifically in relation to the response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. This chance was an opportunity to kill two or three birds with one stone, McCain could not only show his support for the residents of areas anticipated to be hit by the hurricane, but also show his support for Bush, and that the new standards for helping hurricane victims are what is needed. While this will no doubt give McCain help due to his concern, will it help him garner more respect from the more religious Republicans, as he probably hoped for?

Media coverage of the RNC and The Hurricane

2008-09-07T21:30:00.000-05:00

I think the biggest effect that the hurricane had on the Republican National Convention can be seen in the media. The convention clearly received less media attention than it would have if the natural disaster had not been taking place. Although this will probably not have a profound effect on how McCain does in the post-convention polls I think it will have an effect on the amount of attention that I would have liked ot have seen the Twin Cities getting. It is unfortunate that the hurricane should hit at all, let alone during something as monumental as the Republican National Convention during such an important presidential race, however I think the media could have done a better job of making sure that the convention was still being covered sufficently and that it was gettign the attention that it deserves.

2008-09-07T19:31:00.000-05:00

There has been a lot of discussion in the past few weeks about the Republican National Convention, and a lot of discussion about hurricane Gustav. But I don't think that the effect of Gustav on the RNC was completely negative. It's obvious that the coincidence took the focus of the press away from the convention. In reporting about the RNC, the media changed it's focus from the actual events of the convention, to how republicans were adapting because of hurricane Gustav. This might not have been exactly what republicans had planned for, but it did provide a different opportunity for McCain. The opportunity was to show a difference between McCain and Bush. People immediately connected Hurricane Gustav to Hurricane Katrina. McCain had the opportunity to show that he could approach emergencies differently than how Katrina was approached. By cutting down events at the convention, McCain sent the message that he would lead differently than President Bush.

Which might have actually influenced more voters than reports of the convention.

Hurricane Hurts or Helps Republicans?

2008-09-07T18:22:00.000-05:00

Because of the arrival of Hurricane Gustav the Republican National Convention did not start off with such a bang as was scheduled. President George W. Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Laura Bush were all supposed to speak the first day of the Convention with of course Senator John McCain. With the advancement and closing in of hurricane Gustav though Bush and Cheney were required to be at briefing meetings and could not make it to Saint Paul to give their respective speeches of approval and support to John McCain. Also certain republican governers and representatives in areas that the storm threatens to hit (especially New Orleans) refuse to attend the Convention and wish to stay with thier people in this time of crisis. In responce McCain extreamly lessened the first day events to just the voting so that he could accept the Republican Canindate Nominnation. It seems to me that McCain is trying to gain the support of the people by attempting to not hold a full out National Convention in cellabration of his nommination when our nation is in a state of emergency. My question though is that by acting in this way has John McCain lost extremely important media coverage that will be essentail to his securing positon in this race. Obama at the Democratic Convention had an outrageous amount of media coverage that could win the votes of selveral hundred people at least. So does McCain have enough media to get by, or has he dug his own grave, or was he just in a lose-lose situation?

Inexperience. Good or Bad?

2008-09-04T15:13:00.000-05:00

Recently Sarah Palin was chosen to be the vice president in the McCain campaign. This struck me as odd considering that Palin is a mother of five and a little unexperienced. Palin has only been the governor of Alaska since 2006. With such a low level of experience people would think that McCain is kind of going out on a limb. Palin wasn't even on the board a couple of weeks ago. Big names such as Tim Pawlenty (MN), Charlie Crist (FL), and former governors Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney were all front runners for the job.
Doesn't this make anyone else wonder why McCain chose Palin? Is it because she is just that "a she?" McCain may be trying to appeal to woman voters now that Hillary Clinton is out of the picture. Is it because she is 44 years old and may shy critics away about McCain's 'age old' campaign?

Unlike McCain's other candidates for VP, Palin is also relatively unheard of so the media will be trying to find out everything about her within the next couple days. Palin also appeals to the Republican base for hear strong views on gay marriage and abortion, something that McCain has been criticized for by right wing conservatives for his moderate views. So my question is this, did McCain make the right move?

Palin's Speech

2008-09-03T21:41:00.000-05:00

This evening Sarah Palin accepted the vice presidential nomination from the republican party. As she accepted the nomination she said the she "accepts the challenge of a tough fight" but is she really ready? With a pregnant teenage daughter at home and a young child with down syndrome, will she really have the capacity to handle the responabilties that comes with being vice president? Is she just a pretty face in the presidential race, a woman to get the Hilary supporters, or is she really qualifed to be vice president of the most powerful nation in the world?

Deal or no deal?

2008-09-03T16:13:00.000-05:00

Have you been paying attention to the news lately? The Red Sox beat the Orioles. Gustav has the potential to be a category 4 hurricane. Oh, and Sarah Palin's teenage daughter is pregnant. With the Republican National Convention underway, news of the Republican's running mate's daughter has spread like wildfire among the media, making the front page of the New York Times. It has given people more reason to question Sarah Palin's qualifications and led to further investigations about the Alaskan governor's home life.

It's not as if Palin's daughter is the one running for Vice President. Then why is this such a big deal? Or is it a big deal? Do the actions of Palin's daughter have an effect on her capability to be the Vice President of the United States? In a world filled with media and gossip, do you think that the public will let these personal issues alter their choice in the upcoming election? I'm curious to hear everyone's thoughts!

Protesting Protests

2008-09-02T15:38:00.000-05:00

Our group chose a topic that is literally 'close to home'. The topic is the Republican National Convention, which is being held right here in St. Paul. This certain topic has not only shown up in the news recently, but it also made a brief appearance in our classroom today. I wanted to concentrate on what we talked about--the thousands of protesters who attended the event. The news today is that almost 300 of the protesters will be formally charged, many being held on felony charges. But like we discussed today, there is more press about the arrests than the thousands who peacefully protested. It was this discussion of protesters that led me to a question I had--what does a protest accomplish? It is an honest question, and one that I hope some people will be able to shed some light on. Do protests really mean anything? Or are they just an opportunity to unite with people who share your viewpoints and stand for a cause?

In my opinion, protests are usually ignored, and on a large scale, they don't accomplish much of anything (other than getting in the papers because a small group of protesters gets arrested). But that is just what I think. I have a certain ignorance about the topic, so if anyone could educate me, I would be more than willing to listen.

-Tyler

Am I getting too old?

2008-08-28T17:34:00.000-05:00

I don't know, but lately I've found it hard to be inspired by political speeches, even the ones people call "inspired" and "masterfully delivered." There just seems to be too much tactical dishonesty going on, too much erasing of distinctions, too much pandering to the prejudices of the audience. Of course all these things are exaggerated at political conventions. Even when I want to get behind the message, like last night watching the DNC, I find myself getting turned off by the dumbness of it all. There's Biden up there, who, admittedly, I've never liked much, telling us over and over that "Obama was right, and McCain was wrong!" And there were other slams at McCain that were so patently unfair, that I started to feel a tinge of sympathy for the man. Help!

I guess my defenses just rise when I detect propaganda, that sense that the words are calculated only for their effect, not their truth value. Another way to put it is to compare it to something I've always hated at baseball games. Fans judge the correctness or incorrectness of a call only on whether it helps or hurts the team they are supporting. What actually happened in front of their eyes does not matter.

Maybe it's a built-in problem with a democracy that relies on half-informed people not paying full attention. Or maybe it's just me.

Welcome to the Looking Glass

2008-08-01T17:27:00.000-05:00

This blog will give you a chance to see what a group of first-year students, and mostly first-time voters, at Hamline University in St. Paul, Minnesota are thinking about the 2008 elections. And it will give these students a chance to present their analysis, their opinions, and their reactions to what they see.

Our special interest is the way that the campaigns are conducted by, in and through the media. And we're interested in how that media landscape has changed and is changing.

We will try to be sceptical without being cynical, satirical without being sarcastic, and amusing without being flippant. And before we overgeneralize and point fingers we will consider the fact that we are, now, the media too.