Does the 2008 Election mean we are ready for change? Maybe not... (yet)

It's official, the United States elected it first African American president. Can we now sit back, relax, and say phew we really aren't a racist country after all? Did president elect Barack Obama break through the barriers of discrimination and a dark past of slavery and segregation? Are we a country who accepts progressive ideas and shoots down discrimination? In class yesterday we discussed how electing Barack Obama is a monumental step forward for our country, and I agree that it is definitely a big step. Also mentioned was the rise of many racist and extremely inappropriate comments after the outcome in favor of Obama. I myself was shocked to hear friends of mine (who were McCain supporters) use racist terms and tell slave jokes, like it is no big deal and socially acceptable. I almost felt as though for some, the outcome of this election was like stepping back into the America of the 1950s and 60s. However, for the majority, Obama was a milestone in the fight to end race discrimination with some shouting triumphantly, "YES WE DID!", but for over 18,000 gay couples in California, discrimination and a lack of change was a powerful outcome of the 2008 election.

In a CNN commentary, one LA journalist discussed the overwhelming support of Proposition 8 by the Latino community. Most Latinos voted in favor of Barack Obama, but at the same time provided critical support for the prevention of same sex marriages in the state of California. So why bring up the Latino vote when talking about the 2008 election? Well as the article states:

"The irony of Latino support for Prop. 8 is sad. That a community that continues to struggle for basic rights would deny them to another is particularly baffling. A marginalized minority, Latinos, voting to take away the rights of another marginalized group, gays and lesbians, is like the kid who's picked on in the third grade and only makes some headway when a punier kid comes along to take the punches instead."

Even though electing Barack Obama was a step forward away from discrimination of one group, the many propositions in a couple of states eliminated basic civil rights and liberties of others. So therefore, does one step forward and one step back mean there is no progress at all, or is one more important than the other, preventing this canceling out?

I think that even I am caught in this question- and its only 3 days after the election.

Undecided Voters: dumb, unconfident, or smarter than the rest of us?

This week I read an interesting Op-Ed piece in the New York Times that reminded me of our class. The editorial was called, "Your Brain's Secret Ballot" and discusses the reasons some voters remain undecided until right before election day. Do undecided voter's brains work differently than those who are decided? Decision making in the brain is a two part process of gathering evidence and committing to a choice. Inherent to this process is a trade-off between speed and accuracy. Should you make a quick decision and get it over with or if you wait longer, will you in the end make a wiser and more accurate decision? This inner brain turmoil may suggest that undecided voters require a higher degree of confidence before they commit. The article stated that, "recent research has shown that when undecided voters looked at images of candidates, their brains' emotional centers were often activated."

So what is one to make of all of this? Are undecided voters a result of low confidence and self esteem, are their brains slower, do they need more time to make decisions, all of the above...

I think that it might matter from case to case, but either way I think that it is interesting to think about how one's brain works when making an important decision, and in this case choosing the next president of the United States.

Proposition 8: Discrimination or Preservation?

As some of you may know by my blog profile, I am from California. California is obviously not a swing state like Pennsylvania, so many of my friends were surprised to learn that I did not change my voter registration status to Pennsylvania and instead chose to vote absentee in California. I know, I know my vote "doesn't count" in California cause its already a blue state and I could make a difference by voting in a state like Pennsylvania...

The reason I chose to stay registered in California is Proposition 8.

So what is Proposition 8 you ask? Here is the official description and summary of Proposition 8 as prepared by the California Attorney General :

ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

- Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.
- Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

- Over the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly from sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments.
- In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.

So the, why am I so passionate about proposition 8, or rather that it NOT be passed? As a resident of California I think it is completely insane to change the state constitution so it promotes, establishes, and validates discrimination. Proposition 8 has been coined, "The California Marriage Protection Amendment". So allowing gays the right to get married somehow affects other people's marriages? Allowing gay people to marry one another is worse than a "right" that heterosexuals take for granted all the time with drive through weddings in vegas? Is marriage a right, or rather is it a privelidge that is only fit for heterosexuals? I also personally know people who have finally been given the chance to marry their partners after being together for many many years and I refuse to see this right and their happiness stripped from them.

So I decided to take the time to see why people support Proposition 8 and looked at a pro- prop 8 website.

The website I looked at in support of proposition 8 is titled, "Protecting Marriage: Restoring Marriage and Protecting California Children"

Supporters of Proposition 8 say that it restores what California voters already agreed on with Proposition 22 by 61% in 2000 which was overturned by "an outrageous" California Supreme Court by allowing marriage between people of the same sex. The California Supreme Court allowed marriage to be defined not solely between a man and a woman this past June and since then over 11,000 gay couples have wed. Proposition 22 is completely identical to the wording (14 words to be exact) of Proposition 8. In addition to restoring Proposition 22, supporters of Proposition 8 want to bring attention to the overturn by what they call an "activist" Supreme Court and thirdly:

"It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage, and prevents other consequences to Californians who will be forced to not just be tolerant of gay lifestyles, but face mandatory compliance regardless of their personal beliefs."

While I agree that an overturn of a proposition by the California Supreme Court should be discussed and fought, I think that in this case the CA Supreme Court acted in a way to say that CA does not support discrimination. I do understand how supporters of Proposition 22 would be mad about this. However the last point of "protecting" children from being taught that same-sex marriage is the same as traditional marriage is really concerning to me. What is there to protect children from? How does gay marriage affect all of the heterosexual marriages in the world? My parents are heterosexual and the fact that gays and lesbians are allowed to marry doesn't make my parents love each other more or less or take away from what their marriage means to them. With statistics saying that 50% of heterosexual marriages end up in divorce, don't you think it could be argued that heterosexuals are abusing the "sanctity of marriage" by not taking it as a serious commitment?

The fact that Proposition 8 supporters say that this will force Californians to be tolerant of gay lifestyles and basically that they must treat gay people and couples the same as heterosexuals is what makes this proposition more than just an issue that will fiscally or socially affect Californians; Proposition 8 states that Californians stand for discrimination and hate just like many southern states showed before the Civil Rights Act. To deny any person a right that is allowed to others is not only wrong on a moral level, but NOT what the United States Constitution supports. ALSO it is complete fiction that proposition 8 has ANYTHING to do with educating children about marriage, gay or not, in schools. Not ONE word in Proposition 8 mentions education and, "no child can be forced, against the will of their parents, to be taught anything about health and family issues at school. California law prohibits it." Therefore it is no surprise that many top educators, California teachers, and the CA Superintendent of schools are voting NO on Proposition 8.

I understand that people have different values, opinions, and religious views but as a Californian with values, strong opinions, and personal religious views I refuse to allow myself to be associated with what is nothing less than discrimination. This is not about religious discrimination or the protection of children-Democracy is about dissent and challenging government, but NOT about taking personal beliefs that discriminate against others and writing them into law, or even worse, into the California State Constitution.

So if you are a CA voter or know someone who is, take the time to talk to them about this proposition and what it really is all about!

One of my favorite NO on prop 8 ads:



This video is in SUPPORT of Proposition 8 and personally scares me: (It shows why and how young people support prop 8)

Election 2008 and the Lehigh Community

This afternoon I attended a panel discussion here at Lehigh on the 2008 Presidential Election. The Panel included the presidents of the College Republicans and College Democrats, Rita Jones - The direction of the women's center, Ted Morgan- Professor of Political Science, the University Chaplain (as moderator), Seth Boran- a Rabbi and attorney, and Al Wurth- Professor of Political Science. Each panelist was asked an assortment of general questions before speaking including: What direction will we be going in with this election? What does the Lehigh community think about the election? What specific issues have affected the race positively or negatively?

Each of the panelists spoke for 5 minutes and then there was a general discussion.

Topics included the environment, the credentials of the candidates, the role of religion, religious voters, political strategy and campaign tactics, social/lifestyle issues, women and family policies, education, and the youth vote.

It was a great discussion but I would like to delve deeper into the conversations that the group had on a few of these issues:

1. The Credentials of the Candidates

Professor Wurth brought this topic up questioning why the credentials the public expects of the candidates are different than the credentials people use for those being hired for a job and that are stressed in an interview. There are different emphasis made on the credentials as well as different claims of expertise. It is interesting to note that people would rather vote for someone that they feel comfortable sitting down and having a beer with, instead of someone who has the skills and the credentials for running a successful government and positively representing America around the world. Why are so many Americans prone to vote for someone because they seem like "an average joe" instead of someone who is qualified and also shares the "values" of mr. joe? I think that this is something that really shocks me and many across the world. Why are we willing to settle for some average joe instead of someone great for our great nation?

2. Religion Religion Religion

We discussed many aspects of religion in the panel. Firstly the question of how white evangelical christians and Jewish voters will vote was brought up. Is there a shift in evangelical christians towards the Democratic party? Also what role will the overriding social issues of gay marriage and abortion have in this election in terms of religious voters? In terms of Jewish voters we discussed their geographical location in terms of electoral votes and whether or not they place a significant role in the election. The "Great Schlep" was brought up as well!

We also talked about the demonization of religion in this campaign season. This demonization comes from both parties. Firstly Rabbi Boran talked about how during the primary season how the fact that Mitt Romney (former candidate for the GOP ticket) is a Morman played into questioning whether or not he was fit to be a legitimate candidate for the White House. However most recently, how many news anchors, and others claim that Barack Obama is a Muslim and how this is some sort of indicator that he is not fit to run the White House either. We all know that Obama is NOT a Muslim, and has been a Christian his entire life. However, what if he was a Muslim? Why does his religion matter in questioning his credentials? This demonization shows people of those faiths that the American people in a way find their religions illegitimate or bad in some way. If we live in a country that supports freedom, then why are we putting down religion in such a horrific manner?

3. Negative campaigning

We discussed how negative campaigning is everywhere and asked why this is the case. Simply, negative campaigning and negative advertisements are what stick in most people's minds, proving to be more effective. Also, there is little fact checking that goes into many of the negative claims on the campaign trail and therefore no one is held accountable. Many people use the internet as a source of information, but what information is true and what information is false? The Internet is not only empowering, but dangerous in terms of anonyminity. Also, people only look up the information that supports their own opinions and ideologies. Negative campaigning is nothing new, and most likely won't go away.

4. Black or Arab?

The last point that we made in the discussion was in regards to many of the angry claims that supporters of McCain have been making at rallies lately that have gained lots of media attention. There was one woman who said that she didn't support or trust Obama because he was an Arab. The panel suggested that she may or may not have been making a reference to Obama's race. The panel said that it may be more "socially acceptable" to question whether or not someone is an Arab and qualified rather than if someone is Black and qualified especially because of 9/11, and the wars in the middle east. Do we not want to talk about this issue because we are uncomfortable? The panel says yes. Also, will the current economic situation trump the issues of race and religion in terms of the candidates?

This is a lot to think about, but if you have any comments, please share!

Endorsements: Do they matter?

Endorsements are made all the same supporting political candidates, especially during the presidential race. Actors, politicians, newspapers, activists, etc. all state publicly who they intend to vote for for president. Most of these endorsements don't really have an affect on have the general public will vote, but sometimes an endorsement comes along that has a powerful pull in influencing public opinion.


Today, Colin Powell, former secretary of state under President Bush and long-time Republican, officially endorsed Senator Barack Obama for President on the MSNBC show Meet the Press. This is said to be a major boost to the Obama campaign and a major blow to the McCain campaign. Powell has knows McCain for two decades and Obama for only two years, but verbalized that he believed that Obama would be best to lead the country in this economic crisis and represent the "new generation".

Powell said, "I strongly believe that at this point in America's history we need a president that will not just continue … the policies that we have been following in recent years. We need a transformational figure." Powell continued saying that McCain, "was a little unsure as to how to deal with the economic problems we've been having. … That concerned me."

Other reasons Powell endorsed Obama:
- His steadiness, and intellectual curiosity
- His readiness to be president on Day One

Powell expressed concern about McCain's VP pick saying," I don't think she's ready to be president of the United States. ... That raised some questions as to the judgement that Senator McCain made." Also, Powell mentioned Palin's personal attacks on Obama as "troubling" appeals to the far right.

Is this endorsement a "nail in the coffin", as Democrats are stating, or is this endorsement really no big deal? I think the fact that Colin Powell is such a respected, qualified, and experienced man in Washington makes him extremely influential when it comes to swaying the audience. I think that the timing of this announcement is also important, especially since there are less than 3 weeks left in the campaign. This is NOT the type of news that McCain needed now since he is down in the polls and needed some sort of push during these last days of a very long campaign season. I think it is also noteworthy because of the fact that Powell worked in the Bush Administration (2001-2005) and has close ties with the Republican party. This endorsement shows that Powell, who is well respected in the world of politics, is endorsing Obama not because of his partisan politics but for rational reasons and unbiased reasons.

While the McCain campaign continues to advertise Joe the Plumber's endorsement, I think that I personally respect what Colin Powell has to say. Sorry Joe...


Colin Powell endorses Obama on Meet The Press (10/19) :




Here is the Washington Post's endorsement. I included it cause I think it is a good read!

Joe the Plumber- Does he relate to you?

By now, Joe the Plumber is probably wondering when his fifteen minutes of fame will be over. Who knew that a plumber from Ohio named Joe would be such an important talking point at the last presidential debate of the 2008 Election season.

Who is Joe the Plumber you ask?
Joe the Plumber, real name Samuel Joe Wurzelbacher of Toledo, Ohio. While Obama was campaigning in the area, Joe asked him a question about taxes which was caught on camera. The McCain campaign used this little story to say that Joe asked Obama a tough question on taxes and that he ruined a photo op with Obama. McCain used this story to represent the common working man, most famously in the past debate. Now the McCain campaign is saying that Obama is attacking "Joe" and millions of small businesses by raising their taxes and not having their best interest in mind. I think that maybe this campaign tactic could have worked in the campaign back a couple of months ago, but with so little time left in the election, stories and attacks like this turn off the voting public instead of make them want to give McCain their vote. During the debate, CNN has independent voters who have clickers who while watching the debate rank whether or not what the candidates are saying makes them react positively or negatively. Interestingly enough, whenever Joe the Plumber came into the conversation, the independent viewers reacted more negatively than positively. Whether or not Americans feel an attachment and association to joe, I think that the entire Joe the Plumber story in the debate was extremely over used and it may have seemed like a good tactic, but it may have backfired. I know that personally it annoyed me more than made me think, ok he is trying to reach out to the average small business owner. I do not personally have any ties to a joe plumber type in my life nor do I know any joe the plumbers, but I am also just one voter in a sea of many.

So I guess we have to wonder, will all the Joe the Plumbers and Joe Six Packs in American go and vote on election day and pull out a victory for the McCain campaign? I guess we will have to wait and see if this is a success...

Talk to your parents about McCain: Advice from Gossip Girl???

MoveOn organizations are comprised of nonprofits and a Political Action Committee focusing on education and advocacy on important national issues. They state that they mobilize people across the country to fight important battles in Congress and help elect candidates who reflect their values.

MoveOn.org has launched a campaign urging young Americans who support Obama to get their parents to also support and vote for Obama as well. The campaign that they have launched resembles a public service advertisement like those encouraging parents to talk to their children about drugs or sex, but in this case young Americans are urged to talk to their parents about John McCain.

They include "warning signs" like:

3 out of 5 parents may be considering voting for McCain
Talking to your parents about difficult topics like McCain shows you care
Even though it might be awkward, your parents will listen to you.

Sounds familiar doesn't it?

The website includes a list of "how to talk to your parents about John McCain" or how to have "the talk".

However MoveOn.org has uploaded a video on their website, their public service announcement, that includes actors from the popular series "Gossip GIrl", which is popular among young people. Their partnership for a "McCain free white house" .

Here is the ad:


It is definitely funny to watch, with the "drill baby drill" hat, but is this tactic effective? Do you think that young people will go to the website and take the time to not only know the facts, but also talk to their parents? Also, if they do choose to talk to their parents, will their parents listen or take them seriously? As a young person, it is usually hard for people to listen to you or take you seriously, even if you are talking about an important topic such as the presidential election.

I think that the ad may be effective in some aspects, however I do not know if young people will now how to effectively take the information and present it to their parents in an effective way or not. What do you think?

Calling all Schleppers!

Schlep?

For those of us who are not completely familiar with Yiddish, Schlep is a Yiddish word meaning to pull or tug. Schlepping is what many (mostly young) Obama supporting Jews are doing by dropping their lives for a couple of days and flying to Florida, land of the old and a state with a large Jewish population. These schleppers are migrating to Florida to convince their elderly grandparents to support and vote for Barack Obama on election day and to convince them that Obama supports those issues important to Jewish voters like Israel and to quell their fears of the fact that he is black. The Great Schlep occurred over pacing break so if any of you took part in the Great Schlep I'd

thegreatschlep.com states:

"The Great Schlep aims to have Jewish grandchildren visit their grandparents in Florida, educate them about Obama, and therefore swing the crucial Florida vote in his favor. Don’t have grandparents in Florida? Not Jewish? No problem! You can still become a schlepper and make change happen in 2008, simply by talking to your relatives about Obama."

The website includes a funny (it includes some bad language, but its a fun intro) video from comedian Sarah Silverman as well!


The Great Schlep from The Great Schlep on Vimeo.


The website, besides including funny Sarah Silverman includes talking points for jewish grandchildren to talk to their grandparents about to get them to support Obama, basic info, as well as how to donate and get involved.

Some people may think this is silly, but I think its an amazing campaign tactic! What is better than having your grandkids visit you and having them passionate about something!? Also, you obviously dont have to be Jewish to be a Schlepper. Most of us have grandparents and if we can't schlep over to where they live, pick up the phone and call them. Even if they don't change their mind, I bet that they will really appreciate a call from their grandchild! Unfortunately my grandmother is extremely Republican and loves Bill O'Reilly and thinks that Obama is in fact a Muslim, cause good old Bill told her so, but I still called her and told her I loved her anyways. She definitely didn't change her mind, but she definitely appreciated the call!

To read a news story about the GREAT SCHLEP click HERE!

Are McCain supporter's "true colors" coming out under the pressure?

So I am sure that all of you who have been following the campaign (which i assume is all of you) have noticed the recent angry and frightening remarks from McCain/Palin supporters at political rallies across the country. This new and evident rage from supporters on the campaign trail has not only shown their frustrations with the way that the campaign is going, but has led to many inappropriate, false, and dirty remarks and attacks against Barack Obama. The first couple instances of this rage were followed by applause and cheers and "USA" chants from the crowd in attendance, but as time went on and more and more people in the media are noting this rage, McCain is finally taking a stand and telling his supporters not to fight this way and make these remarks. I completely understand being frustrated when it comes to politics; politicians (who i like) make mistakes and say things that frustrate and anger me or when they are behind in the race I get discouraged and upset, but to make death threats to the opponent... that is completely ridiculous and uncalled for, as well as makes the opposing campaign and party look unprofessional, uneducated, and not ready to lead.

Shouts claiming that Obama is an Arab, a Muslim, a terrorist are not only ludicrous but this type of rage I believe shows the true colors of the supporters of the McCain/Palin ticket in a time where their candidate is behind. I think that it is extremely upsetting and scary when comments like, "I don't trust Obama. I have read about him and he's an Arab" are spewed across the political scene, especially in these last crucial weeks of the campaign. It is even more troublesome that when McCain tried to correctly inform his supporters and saying that Obama, "is a decent person, and a person that you do not have to be scared as President of the United States." This comment was met by a wave of boos from a crowd at a recent rally. This type of anger and rage has not been as evident on the side of Barack Obama.

So I ask you, Is this a reflection of the candidate or a reflection of the political party and the type of people that make it up? Or, is it neither and is there something else behind this? And how should the candidate (in this case McCain) handle this type of situation?


A fall in the polls makes anyone discouraged, but should it really lead to this: ???






* this is an update*:

I just found THIS on youtube... I think you get the point.

Barack Obama's Race Problem Part II: Poll Information (I know its a lot...)

When i blogged about the attention of the issue of race being brought back up I was frustrated and actually kind of pissed off. However I decided to do some research on current polls surrounding race as well as region to see if race and region had any sort of relevance or significant relationship. Obviously not all Republicans are racist and not all Democrats are not blind when it comes to their decision of who to support and race. However, I think it is an interesting point to bring up and it should be investigated, because I sadly do believe that race does play a role more so in some regions of the country than others...


The latest gallup poll by race shows that ...

non-hispanic white voters support John McCain to Barack Obama 51%- 42%
Non-hispanic black voters support Barack Obama to John McCain 93%-3%
Hispanic voters support Barack Obama to John McCain 53%-38%

The latest gallup poll by region shows that...

The East Coast supports Barack Obama to John McCain 55%-36%
The Midwest supports Barack Obama to John McCain 50%-42%
The South supports John McCain to Barack Obama 42%-51%
and the West Coast supports Barack Obama to John McCain 50%-45%


So taking that into consideration, here are the results from the Associated Press-Yahoo News Poll on "Barack Obama's Race Problem"

The question in the poll asks, "Does the fact that, if elected, Barack Obama would be the first black president of the United States make you more likely to vote for him, less likely to vote for him, or does it not affect your vote either way?

More Likely To Vote For Him: 8%
Less Likely To Vote For Him: 9%
Does Not Affect Vote Either Way: 83%

So delving a little deeper, the poll report goes on to say that While Barack Obama leads GOP rival John McCain 43%-39% overall, white Democrats are standing by their candidate much less than their Republican counterparts:

71% of white Democrats who say they support Obama while 85% of white Republicans say they support McCain


The poll goes on to ask those being polled, "how the following adjectives 'describe most blacks' showing those who responded 'extremely well' or 'very well' " by all the respondents, all whites, and white democrats.

The adjectives include: friendly, determined to succeed, law abiding, hard-working, intelligent at school, good neighbors, dependable, violent, boastful, complaining, lazy, and irresponsible.

The poll goes on to see how the respondents felt about other races as well as if they felt that blacks have gotten less than they deserved over the past few years.

Though the poll does not talk about specific geographical information in regards to race, it is interesting to see the series of questions asked as well as how those polled responded in terms of race or political party.


I know that this is a lot of information, but I would recommend that you take the time to look through the AP-Yahoo News poll/ study because it really is interesting and provides a lot of information.

Do you think that the poll shows the reality of the race issue? Do you think that this will affect the result of the 2008 presidential election? DISCUSS!!!

is bipartisanship flawed?

I started writing this entry when the news broke of John McCain suspending his campaign and put it into my drafts instead of publishing it, so I guess its a little dated, but I still think its an event worth mentioning and discussing, especially in terms of social psychology.

So what was John McCain thinking? In a surprising turn of events

in a surprising and shocking turn of events, john mccain announced in a press conference that he would be suspending his campaign and return to washington to help with the current economic crisis. However what the media and the public didnt initially realize was that it was democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama who initiated the sequence of events that would turn into a failed bait-and -switch attempt by John McCain. It looked like an attempt for bipartisanship between the candidates to help with the catastrophe that is the American financial system. Barack Obama called Senator McCain at 8:30 am on wednesday to propose that the two candidates attempt to make a joint public statement about the issue since no resolution was coming out of Washington. Obama specifically proposed a joint statement of "shared principles and conditions" for the bailout. However, McCain went out of his way to call for his own press conference and show "his dedication to the American people" by suspending his campaign and postponing the debate until the financial crisis was fully resolved. However, instead of looking like a leader, McCain came off as a bit self centered and presumptious to think that the Republicans and those in Washington "needed" his presence and his vote to figure out this extremely complicated situation that he had NO direct tie or responsibility too. It would have been campaign suicide if he had not gotten out of there and gone to the debate. Thank god that he did.

Stepping back and thinking about this from a different perspective, why would John McCain make such a move? I think that unfortunately (and im sure people will think im just another cynical person and critique in saying this) it was just another political stunt by another politician who was desperate to give his stalling campaign a bit of a push. Since the Sarah Palin honeymoon is dying down and her interviews with Charles Gibson and Katie Couric were claimed to be privately seen as disasters to those involved in the McCain campaign, McCain had to do something. This however, was not a good move. Was McCain trying to show that he was doing what was best for the American people, or did it show that he is not able to hand more than one important situation at one time? I think that with only weeks left of this campaign, not showing up at the debate would have been extremely irresponsible. Whether or not the country is in a financial debacle, McCain also has a responsibility as the possible next president of the United States to talk to the American people in an arena that is a deciding factor for so many of them: the debate. The televised American Presidential and Vice Presidential debates are crucial to those "independent" and "swing" voters as well as important to reinforce the beliefs of those who do have a candidate in mind. I think that McCain assuming that Obama and him should return to Washington was a bad move.

McCain and Obama were going to be an example of successful bipartisanship, however this catastrophe just showed that the ideal of bipartisanship is most definitely flawed, even in this relatively painless and attack-free 2008 campaign. I think that it may raise questions of McCain's ability to make decisions with his erratic behavior as well as his ability to reach "across the aisle" and to gain support from others and work with others.

This turn of events was so dramatic to me and I am glad that it ended in a successful debate, but it also lead to the creation of more negative attack ads and press from both campaigns.

THIS article from TheNation.com questioned McCain's little move on wednesday.... What do you think about this mess?

Here we go again... "Race could play big role in election, poll suggests"

The primary season of the 2008 Presidential Election proved a sad reality about the American public: Race DOES matter.  Coming from a more liberal area/ state, race has never played a huge role in my life or in my decision making.  However, other regions and populations across the United States do still regard race as an important factor.  I remember being shocked when hearing people from Tennessee being interviewed on the news saying things like, "Its not the black house, its the White House," and other vile racist comments.  Do I believe that all people against Barack Obama are racist? Not at all.  

However, the issue of race has been way below my radar lately because of other media distractions.  Today while looking at the latest political news on CNN.com I came across an article titled, "Race could play big role in election, poll suggests".  Immediately I thought, are we really still thinking about this issue, and why the hell is it still an issue?  However, when talking in class about the influence of the media, is this an example of the media influencing our opinions?  The article states that racial prejudices could cost Barack Obama 6% points according to an Associated Press/ Yahoo news poll.  It is usually hard to poll on issues of race because people are not willing to openly talk about the fact that they are in fact prejudice or even worse, racist.  By conducting the poll online, pollsters hope that the anonymity factor would lead to more honest results from those polled.  

Jeff Johnson, the host of BET's "The Truth With Jeff Johnson", said that one misconception is that racial prejudices are unique to conservatives or people in "Middle America" but that, "there are liberals also in many cases that are racist.  I don't think we know yet how it's going to play out".  

Its a scary thought that the evidence from current polls could be completely wiped away on election day when the results are in.  I think that the polls are an underestimate of the possible factor of race and its roll in the current election.  What makes us voters skeptical of someone in terms of their race? What social or psychological roles are in play?  I think that race will unfortunately be an issue in this election season because of the fact that the race is in fact so close.  I wish that we could truly say that race doesn't matter in America, but the evidence says that race is a factor whether or not one is ready to admit it.

Is Unbiased Media Possible?

Today in class we raised the question, is unbiased media possible?  In this day and age I think it is impossible to find a truly unbiased media source, especially in the mass media.  In class some people gave examples such as NPR as being unbiased, but as an NPR listener and fan myself I had to disagree.  Every source of news media that "filters" through our heads has some sort of bias to it.  

I do not think the individual journalists (most of the time) consciously set out to trick us and manipulate us into thinking about something in a certain, set way.  Most of the time they do not have control over what is going to be said and discussed on the air.  The mainstream news media are controlled by a small group of    When we discussed "agenda setters" I think it is important to know who those individuals are.  However the general public is never really aware who those agenda setters are, and that they are even setting their agendas.  I think that especially in recent years, News Television is trying their hardest to attract larger audiences, therefore raising ratings.  The news media today reminds me of the horrible shock-factor, reality tv phenomena.  Each of the major networks include shows that have individuals who relay the news in a shocking way that draws audiences with their viewpoints and bold statements.  This shows the entertainment factor of news media as well.

Do you think that the news media can be unbiased? Or is the news media morphing more and more into a source of entertainment?

Does Saturday Night Live set the tone of Politics?

This past saturday I stayed in at watched the season premiere of Saturday Night Live and was pleasantly surprised to see the return of SNL alum, Tina Fey, impersonating the Republican VP nominee Sarah Palin.  The comedy sketch included Sarah Palin and Hilary Clinton speaking together about the sexism in the campaign and the role of women in politics.  

In the sketch Tina Fey as Sarah Palin says,"We are here to address the very ugly role that sexism is playing in the campaign." Hilary Clinton responds, "An issue that I am frankly surprised to see that people suddenly care about."  

Though it is only a comedy sketch, it is important to note the amount of media coverage that this five and a half minute clip received in the following days.  From Fox News to MSNBC, every talk show and news center had something to say about it.  Does this mean that SNL is relevant in shaping public opinion in the campaign season?  I think it is important to note the role that Saturday Night Live plays in the public.  The sketch addresses the many criticisms that Sarah Palin has received in the news media about her inexperience, not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is, and other issues highlighted on a day to day basis.  The sketch also brings up the news medias perception of her and whether or not the fact that she is a woman means that she is being treated differently or unfairly; if the media is involving sexism and empty attacks on the VP candidate.  Is the media's focus on the comedy sketch just another distraction to focusing on the real issues?  

What do you think the role of Saturday Night Live is during campaign season, or do you think that it should have nothing to do with it?  I think it will be interesting in the next couple of weeks to see the developments between these comedy sketches and reactions from the campaigns, and most importantly, the news media.  

Click HERE to see the full length clip of the SNL sketch in case you missed it!

Left, Right... Ron Paul?

It is quite obvious that in the American political arena there are two major parties: The Democrats and the Republicans.  So what is one to do when neither of these parties suffice?  Well Ron Paul (the former Republican candidate) would like to offer a solution to take action: Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty.    What is that you ask?  Well Ron Paul is one American who is sick of the two party system and is asking the American people to help him in his revolution to:

"Promote and defend the great American principles of individual liberty, constitutional government, sound money, free markets, and a noninterventionist foreign policy, by means of educational and political activity."  

Mr. Paul believes that the two parties are destructive and do not promote things for the good of the American people.  In class we talked about sincerity, so is this "revolution" of Ron Paul's sincere or just another form of "propaganda" to distract the American people.  

Ron Paul continues by saying, "Many Americans today are frustrated.  The Political choices they are offered give them no real choice at all.  For all their talk of 'change', neither major political party as presently constituted challenges the status quo in any serious way.  Neither treats the Constitution with anything but contempt.  Neither offers any kind of change in monetary policy.  Neither talks about bringing American troops home not just from Iraq but from around the world... and none of these sensible proposals are even on the table."  

I agree with Mr. Paul that Americans are frustrated.  However when saying that the political choices they are offered give them no real choice at all, do you think that the two parties are more similar than different?  Is Ron Paul speaking how many Americans truly feel?  Or is he creating another faction of what he defiantly disagrees with?

Is there any such thing as an independent, or do the psychological implications of politics naturally drag us to one party or the other?  Is Ron Paul a radically thinking politician or does he make a legitimate point?  

I would love to hear what you all think!

A Network of Associations: What are they really trying to say?

So today in class we discussed how Barack Obama and John McCain created Narratives and how they framed these narratives in two separate speeches that they gave.

One of the terms and tactics that we discussed in class was Association or The Network of Associations. I think this tactic in political speeches is one that even those who are able to easily pick up what the candidate is trying to do or how the candidate is trying to sway a person would have something to disagree about or who would even miss this point.

The first speech we viewed from Barack Obama was from the primary season and at a rally in New Hampshire with his supporters and those who were out campaigning for him in that state. In class we talked about how although Obama's speech sounded great and wonderful, why the heck was it so vague? I completely agree that listening to this speech did make me wonder the variety of messages he was trying to get across to the many different kinds of people who supported him. By being broad and vague, was Senator Obama trying to play with the crowd's emotions? The simple answer is yes... "Yes he can". Sorry that was a bad joke. haha

But, Barack Obama was trying to make the crowd feel good, feel hopeful, and was framing his speech in a way that catered to those who are not skeptical or cynical of him, or who have yet to decide if they will or will not support him in his candidacy.

In his speech he says, "This is a cause greater than ourselves". So what network of associations contribute to these 7 words? This statement first and foremost can be tied back to Barack's mantra of change. "This cause" is the election, and the election of Barack Obama for the presidency. Therefore, Barack Obama for president, is about change. Barack Obama for president is a "cause" that is greater than ourselves. What exactly does he mean by "greater than ourselves"? I think that he is making the association that this election is extremely important for the future and for the change that 85% of the country think that we need. Barack Obama's cause, he is saying, is not one solely about electing him to be the next president of the United States, but that the values, the change (again), the possibilities, etc. that he represents are vital to the future of the country and the American people.

"This cause is greater than ourselves" then really does create a powerful network of associations. The statement suggests that this election isn't just about politics but that with Obama it is an authentic attempt in the name of all that is good for the American people.

All this sounds wonderful, but lets be honest, this IS all about politics, persuasion, and agenda. Whether or not one believes that Obama is being authentic, or that he even really wants all this good for the American people, it doesn't really matter. All that matters is the associations that the audience makes with the candidate, and that those associations are positive.

I think this idea of a network of associations can become really complicated and one can go really far with it, but I think that it is something to definitely think about when viewing speeches or listening to debates, and ESPECIALLY when viewing political advertisements.

I hope that in my next post I will be able to post a video of a political advertisement (from both campaigns) and analyze the network of associations found in both of them. So look for that!

I hope to hear what other people think about this idea about a network of associations, whether or not you think that it is silly, or really is an important political tactic.

"Palintology" : The Sarah Palin Effect

So after watching the Republican's VP Nominee, Governor Sarah Palin's speech a lot of interesting emotions stirred up inside of me.  I use the word interesting because I not only felt my usual sensation of cynicism towards a republican candidate, but I also found myself in a state of shock and utter disbelief.  The part of her speech that has been highlighted in many news sources across the country is this quote that struck me the most as well:

"I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities."

This is an obvious attack on Barack Obama and his experience as a community organizer when he was 24 years old.  Directing an attack at that aspect of Barack Obama seems as though there are either very weak and vacuous attacks to make on Obama, or rather her campaign struggles to attack Obama with a legitimate concern.  

When stepping back and thinking about this in a tactical perspective, I am a bit confused as how that type of attack can be effective? Are the republicans trying to say that Obama really doesn't do anything and is all words and no action, or are they trying to draw the legitimacy and honor from the work that Barack was once committed to?  

In class we discussed some of Sarah Palin's tactics in convincing her audience (the American people) that she and John McCain are the ticket, and the answer for Washington, come January 2009.  But instead of elaborating on these tactics, I would like to go a different route:

 I would like to raise the McCain campaign's decision in choosing Sarah Palin as the VP candidate.  Why was a unknown politician from Alaska chosen over assumed, experienced, well-known candidates such as Mitt Romney or Joe Lieberman?  I think it is fair to say that the news media and the rest of the country (myself definitely included) were in shock when the McCain campaign announced her as his running mate.  Was this a last minute, careless decision? Or was it purely tactical? ...

While watching different news media channels tonight, I began to wonder about "The Sarah Palin Effect".  Her presence in the Republican campaign, whether you like it or not, has proven to be the "shake-up" and revival that the McCain campaign desperately needed.  However, the decision of Palin seems like a contradiction to what the campaign previously attacked the Obama campaign of.  The celebrity and passionate crowds that drove thousands of people to attend many of Obama's rallies and speeches were touted as unprofessional like, and only strong words.  Obama's passionate supporters were painted as crazed fans that could be compared to screaming teenage girls at a Jonas Brothers concert.  

There is also the fact that McCain chose a woman as his running mate.  After the Democrats dealt with the drama of Hilary and Bill Clinton and their supporters, the Republican party and the McCain campaign jumped on this opportunity to lure those who had lasting anger about the Democratic party's choice of Obama as the candidate.  With the surprise of Palin as the VP nominee, it was as though the Republicans sat back and smiled and waited for a rally of former Hiliaryites to come running towards the McCain campaign.

Is Sarah Palin really a legitimate person to serve as the Vice President of the United States of America? Or, was the choice to place her on the ticket tactical?  Is the hype and popularity surrounding the religious-like movement of Sarah Palin a legitimate force in choosing the next president of the United States?  

I would love to know what you think of this new found movement: Palintology

Click here for the article accompanying the Newsweek cover pictured above.  

An attempt at stepping back

I know that I tend to be pretty opinionated when it comes to politics, but with this blog I hope to not only rant and give my own opinion but try and step back and understand why I feel the way I do and why I think "the other party" is in the wrong.  I tend to get pretty passionate about the statements and the stereotypes and the misinformation represented in american politics, but hopefully my "observing ego" will be switched on some of the time.  

First of all, I am going to put it out there that I am a democrat and I that I support Barack Obama, so I know that I will be definitely "liberally leaning" when it comes to my opinion rants.  When I applied to college I wrote my application essay on  Barack Obama's 2004 DNC speech because of its message of promoting, "not a red America, or a blue America, but a United States of America".  Not only have I found this inspiring, but it is evident that many others have as well since Obama is now the nominee for the Democratic party.  

Watching the DNC this year, I am hopeful that this country has the answer that it needs; a candidate that will fight for what America needs and not only what his personal or religious convictions conduct him to do.  Barack Obama is not a "celebrity" but a political force that is making the country excited that for the first time in many years that there may not be four more years... but rather, four more months left of the current state of our country.

In my next post I hope to discuss the RNC speeches of VP nominee Sarah Palin and the Republican nominee John McCain.  Not only will I discuss what I agree or disagree with in regards of their statements, but why I feel this way, which should be interesting.   (to me at least) 

Thanks for reading my blog!