In a surprising turn events that could prove exceptionally damaging for the GOP’s presidential ticket, former U.S. secretary of state Colin Powell endorsed Senator Barack Obama for president. Although he relayed slight feelings of guilt for letting down his party and good friend John McCain to Tom Brokaw on this weekend’s edition of Meet The Press, Powell stressed that at this time in history, the country needs a ‘transformational figure’ much like Senator Obama; “He is a new generation coming onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason I'll be voting for Senator Barack Obama.”
Amidst praise for the Democratic candidate however, Powell listed several perceived downfalls of the Republican party as well as in the McCain campaign. Among others, Powell’s recent reservations included Senator McCain’s vice presidential selection of Sarah Palin, which has in his view demonstrated a considerable shift to the right for the Republican party, as well as the exceedingly negative tone of the McCain/Palin campaign. As seen in the available video (above), the former secretary of state takes great issue with the McCain campaign’s insistence on associating Senator Obama to Bill Ayers saying doing so has ‘gone too far.’ Now, as Obama holds a steady ten point lead nationally just a few weeks before election day, it looks as though all the negativity of the McCain campaign has worn thin on many Americans (not excluding higher up political figures such as Powell). Is it safe to say that old man McCain has fallen on his own sword in this election? Only a few more weeks to before we find out.
Throughout this semester, we have talked at length about the overall effects of negatively run campaigns - mainly in the form of political advertisements. As many of us are aware, while a vast amount of the existing political communication research suggests negative ads and new coverage results in higher levels of of voter recall, they can have a number of detrimental effects to the democratic process. Concerns of growing feelings cynicism and political apathy as discussed by Hart, as well as noticeable decreases in political efficacy and consequently, voter turn out. Many have suggested that the “very existence of negative advertising has negative consequences in the form of lower voter turn out and an increase in voter alienation and cynicism” (Kaid 174). Further, research also indicates that viewing negative ads puts a dent on citizen’s feelings of efficacy (399). In regards to the potential backlash effects of political advertisements, a large body of research indicates that “candidates who sponsor negative ads my be subject to negative responses themselves-i.e., the negative ads my backfire on them, leading to more negative views of the sponsoring candidate” (Kaid 172). Given the latter revelation, one gains a sense that in recent weeks McCain has taken the proverbial hatchet (no, not a scalpel) to the Republican ticket.
The early media firestorm that resulted from Powell’s Saturday morning endorsement has brought mixed feelings and speculation. While some reports are claiming that Powell's endorsement severely undermines the McCain campaign’s inexperience argument, adding to Obama's image as a man who is in actuality, ready to run the country, others have naturally (and quite obnoxiously) thrown all 52 race cards into the air. Hart would suggest that the successive commentary throughout the media world (especially on television) serves as perfect examples as to why citizens feel "busy" and even "clever" when it comes to the political round-table. "Television," he claims "superintends these ceremonies of cynicism" (Hart 82). Here, on must ask themselves: What would have been the cynical topic of day had not Powell endorsed a man of the same minority race? Additional articles covering the big story can be found here and here. Note that both articles have suggestions of race nicely placed in the center of each piece.
What does the endorsement of Colin Powell do for Obama? How do you think it hurts McCain and company? Is race really a factor here - is it wrong to even suggest it? How much of a backlash effect do you think McCain has suffered in light of his negative campaign and advertisements? Feel free to sound off on any of these important topics and expand on how the negative tone on the campaign has effected your own political feelings.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Is Powell correct when he says that the Republican party is shifting to the right.
Here to answer that question is Minnesota Republican Senator Michelle Bachmann
Senator Michelle Bachmann on Hardball
After viewing her interview, tell me if you think Colin Powell was just being overly sensitive
I would certainly suggest that how I feel about Senator Bachmann's interview is entirely irrelevant here. Could Powell be overly sensitive? Perhaps. At the same time however, when we are concerned over his actual endorsement of Obama, need his personal political perceptions be justified, or even necessarily correct for his selection to merit our attention? I think you voice a valid point, but I think the implications of this endorsement go much father than nit-picking at one point of his actual reasoning. Further, while this interview may sway people to believe otherwise, I feel that Powell's perception of the Republican party is to a degree, valid.
Thanks for participating nonetheless.
I agree with you, nice job breaking it down for all of us. I was surprised to hear his statement of endorsement for Obama, but I appreciate it for what it is. I couldn’t believe that the media was focused so hard on his race and the coincidence (?) between his and Obama’s races and his endorsement. Personally, I think he would have stated his endorsement much earlier if it was a matter of race. I think the media is wrong for focusing on this, rather than focusing on the negative campaigns.
In Seducing America, Hart states about television, “ Those who live on a steady diet of television become trapped. For them, the exceptional becomes the expected and the expected perverse. In such a world, cynicisim becomes an intelligent option or at least, a realistic one.” (82) It is true that the media, especially television, results in a cynical audience. Who wouldn’t be cynical of what they hear on tv? Or atleast it is my belief that you should be. But there appears to exist a fine line between cynicism and stupidity. With the efficiency of political campaignes being challenged by cynicism, how can we know the truth? Easy – look at the facts presented. It took Powell long enough to announce his endorsement, and he stated why he did it. Although trust is hard, I would put my faith in his reasoning and believe he is endorsing for all the right reasons. It is my belief that at times, politicians and public figures need to be cut a little slack – and at this time there is too much negativity floating around.
As far as Powells endorsement's effects on Obama? I think it is fabolous, and very deserved. And as for me, I try to not let the negativity affect my decisions and so far it hasnt. :-)
i think personally that Powell's vote of confidence carries a lot of weight with it. especially as someone i have heard many people wished would run for president, Powell's endorsement doesn't so much help Obama, as i feel at this point nothing could really hurt the guy. but it does solidify people's confidence in voting for him. to tie into that i don't think it does a lot of damage to the McCain Campaign. but that is only because i don't think his campaign could be damaged any more than it already is. the Powell comments are like sticking one more needle into a pincushion. it's just normal now and doesn't really make any special attention. who knows if race is a factor, since i don't know these people i won't make any assumptions, but i don't think people should shy away from the question if it has legitimate backing. however i will say i trust Powell makes his decision based on the candidates qualities rather then factors that don't effect the presidency i.e. ones ethnic background.
now here is the big questions. has McCain's campaign suffered from his negative advertisements; absolutely. i went into this race not knowing who to vote for and leaning toward no one. but the last debate and the general negativity of the McCain campaign has made me throw my vote towards Obama. if you want to think rationally about how to make an effective campaign do you really make a negative campaign amidst one of the most negative times in American history? for 8 years we have heard nothing expect for terrorism, biological weapons, 9/11, hurricane Katrina, the Iraq war, school shootings, president bushes inefficiency to run the country, and the current economic crisis. now as a rational person do you honestly think people, after 8 years of this, want to have more negativity? Obama was a genius to play off the current negativity and make a campaign centered around change and hope. its music to all of our ears. while the McCain campaign decides foolishly to throw more negativity at us. after 8 years we don't want anymore , we are sick and tired of trying to be scared or pissed off.
now am i saying obama is our savior and that McCain is some manifestation of negativity that will destroy our country? absolutely not, but i am saying Obama was a genius to make a campaign based on hope and change. he recognized the current feelings of the people in our country and made a campaign that would speak to us. while is seems McCain didn't do his research and decided to do the same thing that most presidential campaigns have done in the past, which was very unwise. a candidate must adapt to the times to come out on top and it simply seams like McCain didn't attempt to adapt. and like all things when put into a survival situation, the one who can't adapt is the one left behind. McCain's negative campaigning insured that he would be left behind. as our research book says "as people get turned off by negative campaigning, they tune out the electoral process, choosing note to vote at all" (Kaid 174). my theory is that not only did McCain's campaign drive people to note vote for him, but that Obama's positive campaigning had the opposite effect and more people will go out to vote for him. thus McCain will have less voters while Obama will have more and the McCain will be left behind all because he couldn't adapt his campaign to the times.
I believe that since both Powell and Obama are black, people can jump to a conclusion that that the fact helped in Powell’s decision making. I think that undermines Powell’s intelligence, considering his resume, but regardless, since being black is being a minority, and a minority group being in a position to take the highest office of power, it is a natural question to ask. Especially considering the history of black people in this country, which may or may not be a big topic to our generation, it certainly is to our parents and people of that age range, which is generally the age range of people writing those sort of stories and making that sort of commentary.
Endorsement of Colin Powell obviously gives more military legitimacy to Obama, which thus far has been one of McCain’s strongsuits . The fact that Colin Powell did not endorse a fellow millitaryman I think speaks leaps and bounds to the percieved bad decision making on McCain-Palin ticket. Their both republicans and served in the military, in my opinion, you really must have done something wrong not to get that endorsement. Kaid states that, “attacks that focus on the opposing candidate’s issue positions are more effective than those attacking the character or image of the opponent” (173). So McCain I feel as though is relying on fear tactics, but playing on the wrong fears. The fixation on Ayers is puzzling, portraying and furthering the issue in some people’s minds that Obama is a terrorist. As far as I know the man hasn’t posed a threat to the country since the 60’s and because they were on the same committee all of the sudden he is conspiring with terrorist. People are worried about their financial futures, and not just theirs but their children’s as well. If I was a military mom, I’d be more worried about when my child is getting home and not about some retired domestic terrorist. As far as negative decisions go, Palin is a whole other issue and completely off topic but weak on SNL, I mean letting Alec Baldwin call you hot? You married mother of like … five, it’s just weird.
It will be interesting to see whether or not the endorsement of Colin Powell for Barack Obama will sway more voters to lean towards Obama. With Powell's experience and trust that he has gained from the American people it would seem to make sense. Not only is Powell separating himself from the Republican party, he is also agreeing about Bushs failed administration which is a devasting blow for the Republicans. Of course Republicans are going to think harder about who they are going to vote for when such a public figure says they are going to vote for the other guy. This endorsement also says a lot about the negative campaigning that has been going on in this election. At the time that McCain put out his ads I dont think that he was really thinking about the reprocussions of them. On page 173 Kaid states “attacks that focus on the opposing candidate’s issue positions are more effective than those attacking the character or image of the opponent”. I feel that these attacks played a huge role in Powell's decision to endorse Obama rather than McCain. Another issue that has been brought up is the race card. No matter what it seems that people always bring up the race issue so this is really not surprising. Whether or not race played a factor in Powells decision to back Obama no one will really know. And at ths point I dont think that it really matters. The bottom line is that Powell does not agree with McCain and the way that he is conducting his campaign and thats that. If Powell was white of course this would not even be an issue so I think its best that it just gets dropped. Good for Powell to stand up against his party and endorse a candidate who he beleives him. That takes guts and thats another reason why I support Colin Powell and the decisions he makes.
Yeah I saw it - Hamas essentially endorsed Obama. Who knows what will come of that. Pretty much anything and everything gets posted on the site, be sure to look through the links I sent you
Powell endorsing Obama can only do good for Obama. Another supporter in Obama's direction can only make Obama's ratings go higher. Powell is a person that many people listen to or at least respect, so I think his siding with Obama will definitely give Obama another positive bump. I do not think, however, that Powell not supporting Obama would have done anything negative for his campaign.
To compare this action to the readings, the "Image is Everything Presidency" text comes to mind. Not one specific chapter, but rather the basic premise of the whole text. If one was to look at both candidates, not by policy but by the image of "friends", Obama would surely seem like the one in higher power. People tend to base their opinions by what they phyiscally see, so having Powell sit down and announcing an alliance with Obama can only bring strength to the democratic party and seriously demote McCain's image.
The fact that McCain's own people seem to be almost turning against him is certainly not helpful for his campaign. With McCain down in the polls, he can use all of the "friends" he can get.
Part of me wonders whether supports of the McCain party will try to play the "race card". I personally do not think Powell's alliance with Obama is about race, but rather a similar opinion, but I think that people voting in McCain's favor will certainly try saying that the only reason Powell sides more with Obama is because of the same race, which is foolish.
I think that Colin Powell’s endorsement of Obama is doing something very similar to what Oprah’s endorsement did for Obama. It attracts a lot of people who may not have necessarily been interested in Obama in the first place. I think that McCain is definitely being hurt by this endorsement. Powell is one of the most prominent political figures of our time, and he is endorsing someone outside of his party, which I think says a lot for who Obama is and what he stands for. I don’t think that suggesting color is an issue here is necessary. If Colin Powell was white, it wouldn’t be an issue. I think the important thing is to look at the combination of the parties. This is one of the first times this election that we have seen a republican endorsing a democrat, or vice versa, and I think that shows progress in this election.
As far as the negative campaigning aspect goes, I definitely agree with what Kaid says about it. I would definitely say that negative campaigning leads to a negative view of the “sponsoring candidate”. I think that what bothers me is that I usually feel like it is saying something about their personality. While some negative things are sometimes necessary to back their views, the idea that attacking the other candidate on a personal level can be successful absolutely baffles me. I think this is where McCain definitely went wrong in this campaign. I feel like it makes him seem like a huge jerk to say some of the things that he has said about Obama. Attacking their political views, voting records and party standings is one thing, but to attack them on a negative level is another.
Post a Comment