Are debates all they are cracked up to be?

As I was watching/listening to the debate (I did both to try to gain perspective on who looked Presidential vs. who sounded Presidential) I couldn't help but think, "oh, that will be a sound bite used by analysts... so will that... and that will be on youtube" and it became sort of a game to me.  It seemed as if McCain (although he claims he was concerned only with the financial crisis this week) was well rehearsed on what "sound bites" he'd use, which would then be replayed over and over again to his advantage.  He even used the "Miss Congeniality" line twice.  What... was he "afraid I couldn't hear him"...?

Due to the propensity for analysts to replay these "bites" and dissect their meaning until they no longer make sense, I decided to focus my attention instead on the buzz before the debate.  One msnbc article: Presidential debate becomes must see TV compared the anticipated viewership to a Super Bowl audience.  There was so much leading up to it that the actual debate itself seemed, to me, merely satisfactory.  As I mentioned earlier, sound bites were all over this event like white on rice.  And I was disappointed to see that it played (at times) more like a staged convention.  It appeared more like a "pseudo-event" where I was subjected to more b.s. rhetoric; which Waterman, et. al. considers, "is now more often designed to promote a desired presidential image and not to provide leadership for the country" (123).  Is it wrong of me to want the full package deal?  A candidate who will look me in the eye and spare me the public persona... and answers a question out-right?  I don't need all of the fancy political jargon... both of them were guilty of talking to me as if I were another member of the Senate and I'm sorry, as much as I'd like to think so, I'm just not THAT informed.

In the Handbook of Communication Research, McKinney and Carlin speak to the notion of "Debates as Media Events," indicating that, "debate-related news segments are among the most frequent of all campaign stories" (214).  That seems hard to believe with this election (since the Republican V.P. nominee has drummed up enough press to last a lifetime), but when you think about just this past week with all of the hooplah surrounding whether the debate would actually take place, it may prove to be true.  Not to mention the fact that immediately after the debate the television was dominated by analysts trying to get their two-cents in.

Many analysts called the debate a "draw" afterwards, concluding that there were many punches thrown by both candidates, but there was no clear winner.  Perhaps this led to my dissatisfaction?  Perhaps I wanted to see Obama catch McCain in one of his many blatant lies?  Eh, let's face it... I just wanted McCain's head to pop off.  But that's beside the point.  I'm sure there were many viewers who got what they were looking for... (were you one of them?)

Did anyone else feel let down by this debate? (By either candidate or by both?) Did watching the debate, or the analysis that followed, make you feel more informed about the candidates' stances on the topics of discussion?  And how important are political debates to YOU in terms of helping you select or solidify your choice in a candidate?

Debates useful or just another television block?

As the rest of my fellow lead bloggers did I too sat down to watch the debates on Friday night and after watching them I felt let down and confused. Being that it was a Friday night I elected to subject myself to watching it again via internet (http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/first-presidential-debate.html).
My understanding about the debate was it was suppose to be about foreign policy and if that is so the candidates do not even start to talk about the Middle East until about 36 mins into the debate. Knowing that our country is in economic crisis right now I can see why the moderator would want to touch upon that but they did they really need to dedicate the first half hour to it? One thing I found very interesting in watching the debates is that I don’t think the candidates really ever answer the question purposed to them. Even the moderator, Jim Lehrer, seemed to be confused during the economic talk as to how exactly Obama and McCain's answers related to the questions he proposed. According to Kaid “debates may not alter the voting preferences of the vast majority…studies have found that among the undecided, conflicted, or weakly committed debates do help these viewers form their voting preference or even change candidate selection” (Kaid 211). While I think debates are very important, the idea that these debates are helping to secure votes for candidates among undecided voters makes me a little uneasy because I feel that the candidates don’t always answer the questions as so much put on a show to dance around the topic by spewing out facts and numbers that blind the view of the fact that they haven’t really said flat out if I am president I will do this_____. Personally I have never really been a fan of mixing television with politics. I feel that we the viewer are subconsciously influenced by candidates about their appearances or what is going on around them which takes away from what they are actually saying. An example of how watching a debate versus listening to it on the radio can best be seen in the outcome of the Kennedy Nixon debates. The viewers who watched the debates felt that Kennedy won the debate while people who listened to it over the radio felt that Nixon won. It has been suggested that people who watched the debates took into account the appearances of the candidates when declaring the winner. I feel that television in a sense has desensitized us to politics. As Hart states “Coat and tie, heels and hose, are no longer needed when watching the president’s inaugural address” (Hart 92) It seems old fashioned yes, but the idea of dressing up and attending the inaugural address has been lost over the years because what’s the point we know it will be on television and we don’t even need to get our of our p.j’s. I suppose the questions I am trying to get to is, are presidential debates really helping to get their ideas and plans for the future out there? And when watching the debates, are we really impartial to the appearance of the candidates if we are voters on the fence?

Do Debates Really Tell Us About Where the Candidates Stand?

According to Kaid, “Perhaps the most often heard refrain regarding presidential debates is the charge that these staged for TV encounters between our major aspirants for the presidency are anything but true debates” (Kaid 219). This quote is somewhat disturbing because of the great amount of public reliance on the debates to inform them of the candidates’ stances on the issues. The debate last Friday night was supposed to have focused on foreign policy, yet conversation came to talk of the economy and the increasingly scrutinized economic bailout plan that. It seemed as though both Obama and McCain were not willing to take a strong stance on the plan either way, or even their plans for helping make the economy better as president. See http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/27/debate.analysis/index.html for more information. There was a lot of talk from both candidates, but not enough said. Since they did not make a real stance either way, on the subject of the economy, this was not a true debate. Also, because this debate was supposed to focus on foreign policy and not the economy, there really wasn’t enough time to devote to this issue and to talk about foreign affairs in such a short amount of time. Foreign affairs issues include the war in Iraq, terrorism, the situation between Russia and Georgia and the United States’ role in it all, etc. These subjects can not be treated lightly with sound bites instead of good, solid answers and plans from the candidates; yet with the amount of time they had, there really wasn’t much time to go in-depth. If it was Jim Lehrer’s choice to include questions about the economy in this debate, then it wasn’t a fair choice to either the candidates or the American people. The issue should have waited until the domestic policy debate. If McCain and Obama wanted to just talk about their stance on the bailout plan, they could have done that separately outside of the debates themselves.
“Common criticisms have included the inability of candidates to develop sustained and in depth argument due to the abbreviated response times, as well as multiple and often unrelated topics raised in a single debate” (Kaid 219). Jim Lehrer, the moderator of the debates, told each of the candidates multiple times that they only had two minutes to respond to his question, then rebuke what the other candidate had proposed. Half of the time, the candidates were talking over each other, making it hard for the American public to hear or understand what the other was saying. Although they do have limited response time, arguing in this fashion is not helpful to anyone. This is hardly enough time to explain foreign policy, a complicated situation indeed. According to Bruce Miroff in the Waterman book, “Television provides the view most amenable to spectacle; by favoring the visual and the dramatic, it promotes stories with simple plot lines over complex analyses of causes and consequences” (Waterman 122). Simple was all we were able to get. Neither of the candidates really could really go in-depth about their view of the United States’ role in the world and exactly how they would change it. Although he addressed the issue that relations between the United States and foreign countries were strained, Obama did not exactly say how he would change that; all he said was that he had a plan. As a concerned voter, I want to know what that plan is, but I will never be able to find out through the debate because it does not allot enough time for Obama to detail a plan for a very complex situation.
What do you think? Some issues you might think about include: Are the televised debates the best way to judge a candidate for the presidency? Do they provide enough information about where each candidate stands? Do you think that the format should change?

Presidential Debates: Vital to campaigns or poor excuse to persuade?

After watching the first presidential debate on Friday September 24th, 2008 I found I was asking myself more questions than the candidates were asked. One question that stood out the most was, are debates necessary? Since this year’s election process has been so long and what I believe to be drawn out, I find myself wondering if this year’s debates were actually vital to each candidate’s campaign.

The reason for presidential debates is for the candidates to address the public while being face to face with their opponent/s. The candidates are given a certain amount of time to address questions about the issues they stand f. This allows each candidate to let the voters know how they feel. Each candidate is also allowed time for rebuttal against the opposite parties comments. The purpose is to strengthen supporter feelings as well as to gain supporters.

Since the election season has begun each candidate has made it known where they stand on every issue. From interviews, to town speeches to their official websites they have made it very accessible to voters on their feelings and attitudes towards all of the issues involved in this upcoming election. I just don’t understand while all this information has been out there for the past year or so there is still a need for debates?

The only reason I feel debates may be necessary are for the apathetic people in our country, so they can hopefully take something from the debate and make a decisions to vote for a candidate. However I do not know how effective debates would be to sway these people to support a candidate because they probably would not even tune into the debates. The problem I have is the people watching the debates are the ones who have already picked their candidate and are the party faithful. Those are the people who are going to watch the debates just to see how the candidates react to each other and how they answer the questions and to see who will “win”, meanwhile they will just say the candidate they are in favor of won.

Contrary to my opinion presidential debates prove to be effective on the public. In the Handbook of Political Communications Kaid states, “debates contribute to a more enlightened and rational electorate better equipped to make an informed voting decision,” (Kaid, 205). I can argue with this statement, a voter can research a candidate and watch them speak on television and read online articles and still be able to make an informed voting decision.

With issues constantly being brought up in various media sectors the debates just become a show of who is going to get tongue tied or whose attempts to charm America were better, the issues often get lost. So honestly are these media spectacle of fights and contradictions also known as presidential debates really effective? Well, Lanoue and Schrott state “campaign debates are above all, attempts to persuade—with candidates appealing to citizens for that ultimate prize, their vote,” (Kaid, 209). How much more can you persuade the voters who have already picked you as their candidate! This just reassures my beliefs that debate are not necessary.

In an article I found from the Associate Press, concerning McCain’s plea to postpone last Fridays debate to travel to Washington due to the current financial crisis. (http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/election08/articles/2008/09/25/20080925mccain-obama0925.html) Obama states that now more than ever the debates are vital to the campaign, that McCain should not postpone the debate. Obama states, “this is exactly the time when the American people need to hear from the person who, in approximately 40 days will be responsible for dealing with this mess," This boggles my mind because the American people will be hearing the same thing they have been hearing for the past year!

Are the presidential debates effective for convenience reasons, so voters can turn on their televisions and just hear all the issues at once instead of actually caring and researching a little more? Or are these debates actually effective.

Polls show that Obama is now in the lead (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/) due to “winning” the debate. Did the debates actually help put Obama ahead in the polls again? Could he have swung undecided voters through his debating skills? I personally do not think voters could have been swayed that much by this past debate. I do not think this one night completely changed the campaign to reassure Obama that he will be the next president.

With those last remarks I leave you with the questions still in my mind for you to think about, do you think presidential debates are vital to candidate’s success in winning the election? Do you feel Friday night’s debate informed you about anything you didn’t already know or did you find the information you received was just reassurance?

The Internet: A New Form of Campaigning

The Internet: What Effect Does it Have on You?

The New Media, or the Internet, undoubtedly plays a huge role in our lives today. With that being said, the 2008 Presidential Election is no exception to the smorgasbord of information that has been coming our way. Throughout the years, television has been taking the heat on the impact that it has on Americans, particularly focusing on TV and politics. But now, the Internet might possibly be playing an even more pivotal role in this election. As we discussed in last week’s class and heard from the group who presented, advertising, whether it is on the television or the Internet, quite possibly influences Americans in one way or another, whether it be positive or negative. As John Tedesco says in Lynda Lee Kaid’s The Handbook of Political Communication Research, “The Internet quickly transformed the way individuals, organizations, political institutions, and governments communicate and negotiate political information and political roles” (507).

In the article “Record Percentage of Americans Use Internet For Politics, Survey Finds” by Sarah Lai Stirland, it says that at least 46% of all Americans have used the Internet, email, or text messages in some way during this political process. This survey was conducted by a non-partisan group called Pew Internet and American Life Project. The article further explains that the Internet is becoming part of the norm in political participation, from reading the news to people sharing their views. “In this season, just the twelfth year of presidential politics online, there is no disputing the fact that the internet has moved from the periphery to the center of national politics,” writes Aaron Smith, a research specialist and Lee Rainie, the Pew project's director in the new survey.

Bloggers have become quite popular in this election, as there is “The Caucus Blog” on NYTimes.com (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/?scp=1&sq=political%20blogs&st=cse) and the “Political Ticker” blog on CNN.com (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com), as well as citizen bloggers who are voicing their opinion and exercising their right of the First Amendment. It can be said, though, that people criticize blogs, due to a possible lack of credibility or authenticity from these citizen bloggers. Tedesco quotes Glass (1996) in saying that “the Internet offers far fewer clues to its users to help them discern the good from the ugly” (Kaid 522). In addition to blogs, there are so many websites out there that people can view about the ’08 Election. Youtube.com has an array of political videos that can be seen, as well as the presidential candidates own websites, supporter websites, third-party websites, ad campaign websites, etc.

Tedesco says that there are many political observers who are either “optimists or skeptics” when it comes to the Internet (Kaid 507). So where do you think you fall—generally, do you think that the Internet plays a more positive role when it comes to a voter’s political process; or do you think that voters need to be somewhat skeptical when it comes to the Internet? (i.e. blogs and their validity). Also, how have you used the Internet during this presidential election, and how much do you feel you rely on the Internet as compared to other mediums (TV, newspapers, talk radio, etc.)?

Youtube: The Ideal Public Sphere?

YouTube is a phenomenon that has taken over the internet over the past few years. Everyone and anyone (with access to a computer) can use YouTube as a place to share their videos, and therefore share with the world their ideas, talent, humor, music, or political views. From the beginning of the 2008 presidential race YouTube announced a new section featuring campaign channels called, “You Choose ‘08” (http://www.youtube.com/youchoose). Each of the candidates had their own channel where their party & supporters are able to communicate to potential voters. They also have a You Choose Playlist, where the best or most popular political videos of the week are featured. The voters can then give their feedback and converse online with others. This gives people the opportunity to select which issues are most important to them and directly go to these types of sites to view videos of the candidates and what they have to say. In the article “YouTube’s Role in Election 2008”(http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/03/01/presidential-candidates-turn-to-youtube)YouTube’s co-founder and CEO, Chad Hurley said, ‘YouTube is about democracy and self-expression and we’re proud to be providing politicians with an environment where they can share information with voters.’ Everyone with Internet access can participate in these online discussions, but does this help the election overall? Is this only helpful for the younger voters since 70% of 18 to 25 year olds find the internet useful, whereas only 48% of those over 25 find it useful in the political process (Kaid 409)?
As mentioned in the Political Handbook, Bennett and Etman described the “ideal public sphere” is a place where “all citizens have equal access to communication that is both independent of government constraint, and through its deliberative consensus-building capacity, constraints the agendas and decisions of the government in return” (515). Is YouTube’s “You Choose ‘08” an ideal public sphere, independent of government constraint? Some others argue that this type of citizen participation is not the ideal form of a democracy and complicates the election process because it makes people more cynical and confuses them. Is the internet the ideal place for people to communicate about political issues? Or do you think that it is only targeting the younger generation (especially YouTube)?

The Online Election

There is no doubt that since the last presidential election that the further development of the Internet has been a major player in the changes of the election process.  Even since the 2004 election, websites such as MySpace have developed into thriving social networks that help promotion, information sharing and communication needs for the candidates. 

 

In an article from Financialtimes.com titled “Hot Button Election: How the Internet Drives the US Campaign”, the authors Kevin Allison and Richard Waters discuss the importance of the Internet to the current presidential race, in terms of the voters as well as the candidates themselves.  You can find the article here:  http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/da465824-802b-11dd-99a9-000077b07658.html

 The first part of the article discusses how new technologies and the Internet have helped make voter data more accessible and easy to use for the candidates and their campaign teams.  The second part of the article is what I would like to focus on for this discussion: how the Internet has affected information sharing, promotion and the voting process. 

 The Internet has undoubtedly made it easier for the candidates to promote themselves.  The article brings up several examples of this, including an anecdote about a woman who was able to find information about a party based around Barack Obama’s acceptance speech at the DNC.  The easy accessibility is beneficial not just for the candidate but for the voters as well because so much information is at their fingertips that they are in general more informed.  While some people argue about the idea of the “digital divide” and say that not every American has access to a computer and the Internet, I would have to disagree.  Lynda Lee Kaid states in the Handbook of Political Communication that “more significant to the ramifications of Internet access on political communication variables is the findings from this report that shows ’94 million American adults have Internet access’” (513).  It is easy to see that this divide may not exist because of the huge boom of political websites as well as the addition of politics onto existing websites such as MySpace. 

 

Not only are politics more prevalent on the Internet, new types of political tools have been created to help inform voters about the issues.  Many news websites have created grids, graphs and other easy to use tools to help inform voters of where the candidates stand.  Politicians have also been using blogs to their advantages to get their word out to their supporters and swing voters who have yet to make a decision.  In addition to this, candidates can even ask you for your money online, rather than the more old-fashioned ways that have been used in the past. 

I would definitely consider the Internet part of what Kaid discusses on page 397 of the Handbook, “politically relevant media”.  I also think that it will become even more relevant as more politicians are given the opportunity to make use of it.  In the future I think that not just presidential candidates will make use of it, but members of Congress, the Senate and individual state governments as well. 

 

Do you use the Internet more often than other forms of media to gain political knowledge?  How has the Internet affected your views on the candidates for this election? 

 How do you feel about the digital divide?  Do you think that a divide exists in the world of political communication on the Internet today?

 How do you think the Internet will affect the elections of the future and the face of politics?  

Qualified or Quacked?

What is maturity? As people grow, they attend higher levels of schooling, form tighter relationships, get a car, and can even vote. Voting brings one a feeling of maturity; that they can finally do something that those younger than them cannot and those their senior can, a privilege of sorts. But how can people feel mature about voting when the advertisements that they see everyday for their presidential candidates are full of immaturity?

Understandably, each presidential candidate wants to make himself look better than the other candidate but are angry and accusing commercials really going to make a candidate look better or more qualified? When does advertising become more of a grade school quarrel and less of a mature debate?

As referenced in class, McCain’s campaign has recently started putting out more damaging commercials towards Obama which really begin to attack Obama’s character. McCain has put out a commercial accusing Obama of being a pervert who wants to teach sexual education to young children. He also has called Obama nothing more than a celebrity, implying he is incompetent to run the country.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVLQhRiEXZs&eurl=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/09/mccain-ad-obamas-lone-edu_n_125205.html

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/08/hot-chick-dig-o.html

Obama’s advertisements have recently taken to accuse McCain of being a monster who wants to take away abortion rights from women all over the country. The commercials aim to instill fear in the viewers.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Election2008/Default.aspx?id=238514

The Handbook of Political Communication Research discusses the role of political advertising on television and its role. It states, “In many countries, for instance, do not require-or even allow-their candidates or parties to purchase space or time for political advertising. In contrast, some countries provide free time on public broadcast outlets for candidates and parties to promote themselves and their ideas” (156).

In some other countries, there is no political advertising allowed and yet the people still end up with a leader. Whether they have much knowledge of their leader becomes questionable.

The advertisements have become more and more expensive every year. The Handbook reports that, “In the last four presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, and 2000) spending for political advertising has been at record levels. George H. W. Bush and Dukakis together spent over $80 million on electric advertising in 1988 (Devlin, 1989). In 1992, the three-candidate race resulted in combined spending of over $120 million for Perot, Bush, and Clinton (Devlin, 1993). Clinton, Dole, Perot, and their respective parties spent nearly $200 million on advertising time in 1996 (Devin 1997) but were topped by Al Gore, George W. Bush, and their parties, with $240 million in reported advertising expenditures (Devlin, 2000)” (157).

So obviously, these slanderous advertisements are not coming at a cheap price. It is sad that so much money goes into what appears to be a childish game of “he said, she said” when the money could be going to helping people around the country.

In the years before television, candidates were forced to promote themselves by travel because there was no other way for them to get their name and image available to the public. Currently, in a world of internet and television, the candidates do travel to advertise but do not focus on the same things that past presidential candidates did because they have the safety net of the television and internet advertisements.

If candidates did decide to travel to every little place in the country to get their name out there, expenses would no doubt be even higher because of all of the traveling they would have to do. However, if candidates did this and rid the world of the slanderous television campaigns, would the expenses be worth it?

So the question is what is the better option? Should presidential candidates continue to invest in accusing advertisements that seem to be based solely on attacking their opponent and less about promoting themselves? Or should they spend more money and stop investing in accusing advertisements and start investing in traveling to even more places to promote themselves in a positive way?

Political Attack Advertisements

With the recent influx in political advertisements, there are more and more of them which are becoming attack ads. With the recent emergence of the McCain ad, which bashes Obama and compares him to the likes of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, which can see seen here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c0vctCfhH8), making him out to be more of a celebrity than a politician, there are some ethics which are called into question.

I find the idea of McCain saying that Obama is a celebrity to be one that is causing issue with me, first off, the fact that he is trying to make celebrity status out to be a bad thing, is it so bad that everyone in the world knows his name and his polices? Is it so bad that when people think of who is running for President of the United States of America, people, mostly, automatically think of Barak Obama and not John McCain? And the worst part about all of this, is that, by doing this, he is trying to make himself seem like a regular person, when he is nothing of the sort. Obama speaks about this in his ad named “Seven Houses”, which can be seen here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCMVL5tXLGQ).

The Handbook of Political Communication states that “There is no universally accepted definition of negative advertisements, but most would agree that they basically are opponent-focused, rather than candidate-focused. That is, negative ads concentrate on what is wrong with the opponent, either personally or in terms of issue or policy stances” (Kidd, 2000, p. 157). By both McCain and Obama directing ads towards their opponents and not themselves, they are playing into the negative campaigning ideas. Personally, I believe that this is a terrible way to go about running a campaign, by smearing another persons name and trying to defame their character, is no way to win the presidency, or any official position. It is merely saying that the people who are approving the messages are allowing for their campaigns to belittle another person’s way of life and make them seem like the bigger person because of it.

Is it possible that these advertisements are actually helping the people who are putting them out, or are they slowly making sure that the candidate who is approving the message gets defeated by their own ad?

Ads and Blogs...They're Everywhere

Political ads: it's hard to get away from them.  In these last few months before the election, it seems like the candidates are throwing all of their eggs into the TV ad basket.  In Connecticut, we don't see as many as in the swing states, but there are definitely enough out there to get the idea of what these ads are all about.  The handbook defines political advertisements as "the communication process by which a source (usually a political candidate or party) purchases the opportunity to expose receivers through mass channels to political messages with the intended effect of influencing their political attitudes" (156).  They are a good way to get the attention of undecided voters, but an even better way to make fun of each other on national television.

I found an article from CNN Money about how political ads are actually helping the media industry.  Leslie Moonves, the CEO of CBS said that the increase in political ads is boosting CBS' revenue, especially since the VP picks from both Obama and McCain.  Moonves also noted that the auto industry is experiencing a boost in income and spending more money on advertising.  You can see the article here: CBS CEO Leslie Moonves notes political ad gains

A boost in the media industry's revenue is just one of many effects of political advertising.    Political ads can help viewers with name recognition, remembrance of specific campaign issues, and formation of candidate images.  Of course there are also some negative effects of these ads, as we have seen with John McCain's use of Paris Hilton in an ad about Obama's "celebrity".

What kind of effect, if any, do political ads have on you?  Do you think that they do a good job promoting the candidates or do you think they do more harm than good?

Aside from just political ads, the media has other outlets in which they can inform the public about politics.  In the 2000 election, "the use of traditional news media, along with information from the Internet, had independent effects on political learning" (Handbook 371).  Eight years later, the Internet plays a much larger role in our knowledge of politics, for better or for worse.  Political blogs are so common now, it's hard to know when to believe what you read.  As I looked for a news article to post in this section, almost every article from my Google News search was from a blog, saying how bad the political blogs are.  Here is a particularly entertaining one from The Moderate Voice: Blog Addiction

How do you feel about political blogs? Do you read them, and if so, do you think they are an accurate depiction of the political situation?

Sarah Palin

Posted on behalf of Tom Keith:

As a liberal, my initial reaction to the selection of Sarah Palin was one of belittlement and condescension. Did the GOP really think that Hillary Clinton supporters were either stupid enough or bitter enough to vote against the core of their beliefs because of a vice presidential nominees gender? Surely their Rove era arrogance had not reached this point.

Sadly I was wrong about McCain and the GOP. They were not gunning for Hillary Clinton supporters. They were taking sharp aim at the conservative base and in the process hijacking the political narrative of “Only in America” from the Obamas.

The fact is, in the world of political media and image making a young, attractive female governor with hard right values and an intriguing family narrative is something possible of igniting conservatives for the first time in this race. And in an all telling twist her teenage daughter is pregnant.

One would rightly assume that the liberal media would be frantic trying to get a hold of a story about an illegitimate pregnancy in the campaign. The McCain camp counted on this and used it to jab Obama on claims he wasn’t keeping his promise to deliver a new kind of politics. Obama and Biden both released very pleasant statements regarding how families should not fall victim to the magnifying glass of election season.

So in essence on a kitchen table level McCain has literally done the impossible. He has stolen the conversation from Barack Obama who might be the most compelling candidate since John F. Kennedy. In both of my political science classes the discussion was Palin and that is why McCain picked her, she gives him buzz which he could not produce to save his life.

Now with the polls split almost dead even, Palin has served as a GOP political wrecking ball, changing the game literally. Obama is now back on his heels for the first time. For the next 60 days the battle for political narrative, media image, and simple hype will be escalated to epic battle. Obama will be waiting for the moment Palin’s story begins to bore us so he can take back the conversation. But if she continues to provide news, personal or political, it might become more difficult than he thinks.

Celebrity Polictics: When "Us Weekly" Attacks

The 2008 election is unlike any other for many, and quite obvious reasons. One issue, that may or may not, seem as important as others, is the issue of celebrity. McCain’s well hyped commercial, comparing Senator Barack Obama to the celebrity juggernauts Britney Spears and Paris Hilton questions this issue. In Hart’s “Seducing America”, it describes the effects of this new turn in political ad campaigns. It states, “In a sample of 803 political commercials, only 134 (less than 17%) addressed policy questions and only 50 of these latter advertisements (6.2% of the 803) ‘contained specific policy positions’” (55). Celebrity powerhouses Britney and Paris may be, but political aficionados, they are not. Though that could be questioned with Paris Hilton’s rather comical response commercial to McCain’s add. ( http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/4178033806 for all those who did not see it).

So what about those Republicans? Sure McCain is a Maverick, but the American public has not seen McCain in an awe inspiring environment surrounded by followers, and fans, like Obama was in his recent tour of Europe and his speech in Germany. As it states in Waterman’s “The Image-Is-Everything Presidency”, “From Franklin Roosevelt’s time onward, it became necessary for presidents to be good public speakers and to have a clear message” (143). That is of course until Sarah Pahlin rolled around. In perhaps the biggest boost of adrenaline ever pumped into a political campaign, McCain picked the relatively unknown Governor of Alaska as his running mate. A self proclaimed “pitbull with lipstick hockey mom” her good looks and tenacity has garnered the celebrity attention that the McCain ad mocked. In a recent New York Times article http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/business/media/08usweekly.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=login, it details the aftermath of the Us Weekly coverage of Sarah Pahlin and the headline of: “Babies, Lies, and Scandals”. This headline is particularly curious since a June issue with Barack and Michelle Obama on the cover where the headline was: “Why She Loves Him”. What right does a magazine like Us Weekly have in questioning someone’s political past when before the Sarah Pahlin story garnered the most hits on the website, the previous topper was Jennifer Love Hewitt’s diet secrets?

With that being said how important is personality in today’s culture as compared to elections past? Are the issues being skewed by the “celebrity” or the popularity prowess the tickets have? As the country’s youth, how are we supposed to grow from past mistakes if we are too superficially stagnant to recognize them as they are present?

Mind Over Matter: Personality Politics

In recent history, Presidential campaigns have transformed from policy driven to media spectacles, which do not necessarily discuss the major issues in depth. The general public nowadays has access to an abundance of information concerning each candidate, from their views on abortion to what cereal they eat in the morning, and which pant leg they put on first in the morning. These minute details only contribute to the idea that “news” of the campaigns is not necessarily hard-hitting or investigative. Kaid’s chapter 9 of the “Handbook of Political Communication Research” discusses how elections currently resemble horse races and other large media events (238). Campaign journalism has become saturated with stories of various blunders and errors the candidates have made. Kaid states on page 240 that “researchers have shown that the most common themes of campaign stories are those that are simply about what is happening in the campaign itself (Hess 2000).” Candidates have become celebrities in their own right, taking over the pages of not only newspapers, but gossip magazines as well, as campaigns have become personality driven matters. We, as the general public, now feel as though we personally know each candidate. As Hart discusses in chapter 3, people are now using the same judgment to pick a President as they use to pick a spouse or a golf partner (52). He also argues that instead of using traditional political knowledge to pick a President, “personality politics” has become the most common way to judge the candidates, and thus chose a President.

On September 2, 2008, Chris Cillizza posted this enlightening article on the Washingtonpost.com political blog. Senator McCain’s campaign manager, Rick Davis, confirmed to staff at the Washington Post that this particular campaign will not be decided by the issues at hand, instead, the victor will be the candidate who made a better impression on the public. The better “personality” will win it all.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/09/mccain_manager_this_election_i.html

Before the conventions, or even the primaries, Kip Parent, a personality expert went on NBC news and discussed who would win the election based purely on personality traits. Even though Parent was not correct in his predictions for the primaries, listen for his analysis of Obama and McCain, both categorized as “artisans.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1eg0zFmAOM

Is it a problem that many U.S. citizens are now basing their votes on personality instead of political issues? Is it a problem that our new Commander-in-Chief may be the person who you would like to have lunch with rather than the better person for the job? Why is it that policy issues have been put on the back burner and personality seems to be more of a concern when choosing our new leader, and become more focused on in current campaigns?

Shaping public opinion on political issues

Posted on behalf of Steve Halas:

Since the dawn of the television age media coverage has helped people to form their opinions about politics and world affairs. But where do these ideas and opinions really come from? Are they the public’s ideas that are solidified by media coverage, or is it the points of view of politicians and reporters that make up the public’s mind? How do any of us claim to have our own points of view about politics if the only place we get our information from is the television set and internet videos?

In chapters 1 and 2 of “Seducing America” Hart discusses the effects television has had on Americans and their political opinions. On page 5 of his book he writes, “Television, I shall now argue, tells us how to feel about politics, producing in us a swagger whereby we tower over politics by making it seem beneath us.” If this is true, that television tells us how to feel about politics, how much do we really know about the government and politicians? How much of what we think we know is shaped by the mind’s of political types and figureheads who strive to gain public favor through the use of flexible mediums?

As we near the time to elect a new president the television and internet has been flooded by images of candidates, their commercials and tons of speeches. With this storm of information comes loads of mixed messages from different sources, but where do our opinions come in?
The following is one of Obama’s campaign videos. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCMVL5tXLGQ

This video was obviously made to help support Obama and criticize McCain but are there aspects of it that are misleading? It’s part of every politician’s game plan to make him or herself sound like a man or woman of the people, but how much do we really know about McCain and Obama? A little bit about their family lives, where they went to school, where they grew up? The media sure has a way of telling us a lot without telling us anything at the same time!
This second video is of Hilary Clinton’s speech on august 25th at the Democratic national convention. Just listen to the first three minutes and thirty seconds of this thing if you haven’t already heard it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=268ncnoitEc

Hilary got rave reviews for this speech, but what do you guys think of it? Does it sound misleading or do you feel as though it’s an honest depiction of her political agenda and personality?

Speech Reaction

What is your take on Sarah Palin's speech? How did John McCain do? I'm curious to hear your reactions.

When pseudo and real events collide

The Democratic and Republican conventions are million-dollar political spectacles, pseudo-events designed specifically for television audiences. Waterman et al discusses the importance of pseudo-events in contemporary politics in Chapter 1, explaining how these events are all about creating images. The primary purpose of conventions since the late 1980s has been constructing images that will define the candidate and the party. These images are aimed at energizing the party faithful (primarily the delegates in the arena) as well as swaying undecided voters. But, as Hart argues in Ch. 1 of Seducing America, this reliance on image-making is problematic because it reduces politics to pictures, especially when television is the primary medium people use to get their political news.

Last week, the Democrats put on a grand political spectacle that culminated in Barack Obama’s acceptance speech in front of a crowd of 84-thousand at Invesco Field, complete with confetti and fireworks. Throughout the week, the Democrats aimed to present a cohesive and compelling image of their candidate to voters. The convention received top billing all week on all of the major broadcast and cable news networks, and it dominated coverage in newspapers and on talk radio. Slate.com offered a critical take on the spectacle of political TV in the following article:
http://www.slate.com/id/2198956/

This week, it is the Republicans’ turn to present an image of their candidate, John McCain, to the public. While there would have been notable differences in the style and substance in the two conventions, the similarities of the spectacles would have outweighed the differences. However, now the G.O.P. has been faced with a dilemma – competing for news headlines with a natural disaster, Hurricane Gustav. Already, the Republicans have been forced to make changes in their convention schedule. The following Associated Press article from late Sunday evening offers details: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080901/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_convention_rdp;_ylt=AiAEyFaoGF9V3zuP1dUdblNh24cA

Based on the information in the Waterman et al and Hart readings, how would you assess Hurricane Gustav’s impact on the G.O.P. convention as a pseudo-event? What happens when pseudo-events and "real life" events collide? And how do you think the media will react?