The 2008 presidential race has quickly increased to become of the most expensive presidential campaign ever. In order to be considered a legitimate candidate, one must raise or provide millions of dollars to keep up with the other candidates. With such demanding financial needs candidates look to big contributors to help finance their bids for presidency.
The Federal Election Commission has recently released information about donors and who they contributed money too. Not surprisingly a lot of high profile celebrity’s names are on these lists. Many of the celebrities donated the maximum allowed by law. Donations can’t exceed $4,600, which although seems insignificant with respect to some of the celebrities fortunes, still helps to boost the candidates total campaign funds. Do you agree or disagree that there should be a maximum donation? By capping the amount that an individual can donate are they leveling the playing filed so none of the candidates can benefit from a particularly generous donor.
A list of celebrities and who they have donated to can be found on CNN’s website. http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/16/celebrity.contributions/index.html . A lot of the celebrity donations have gone to democratic candidates, who in past elections have been closely tied to the liberal party. Do you feel that by doing this, celebrities want to give themselves good public relations, or are they really interested in the political matters that each of these candidates stand for? For example Steven Spielberg gave to three different Democratic candidates, all the same amount of money. Is he attempting to help these candidates with this smaller donation, or is he attempting to get good press for his philanthropy?
By releasing these records do you think that they are giving voters more reasons to make uninformed votes based on their celebrity allegiances?
Monday, April 16, 2007
The Money That Makes Campaigns Go Round....
I recently read an article on the New York Times about "Donors Linked to the Clinton's Shift to Obama" and it got me thinking about the amount of money going into the 2008 Presidential Elections.
It seems to me like the 2008 campaign is becoming an auction and bidders are becoming floaters. I thought supporters kept it in the family, I guess not. "A list of Mr. Obama's top fund-raisers released Sunday showed the extent to which the Democratic Party establishment, once presumed to back Mrs. Clinton, has become more fragmented and drifted into her rival's camp, lending the early stages of the Democratic primary campaign the feeling of family feud" (NY Times). When I first read this, I wondered if that was legal jumping of ship.
I never really knew what when into financing a presidential candidate. Senator Hillary Clinton has raised $19.6 million for the primary, and $6.9 million for use in the general election. Senator Barack Obama has raised $24.8 million for the primary and a mere $1 million for the general elections. What crazy about all this money, is the fact that it has been raised in (FIRST QUARTER). I can't even begin to image what the second quarter will look like.
I can't even begin to think about how you spend all this money. I wonder what this election will be like given the fact that campaign budgets are so high, will it be about commercials, advertisements or the debates? Will campaigns be really negative or remain positive and who will throw the first curve ball and what will it cost?
The more I think about it the more it sickens me to see the kind of money invested in these campaigns when we have homeless people on the streets, children who can't read or go to college because their parents can't afford it, people who have not been able to heat their homes because oil prices are so high, and soldiers over in Iraq dying. I guess I look at all the money and wonder what if their was a cap on what you could campaign with and the rest that you raise must go towards a good cause in the world.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Injured NJ Governor
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1610672,00.html
Recently, Governor Corzine of New Jersey was injured in a car accident. The article above explains how severly he was injured and also the details of the accident. The accident actually happened on his way from a meeting with Don Imus to another meeting with the Rutgers women's basketball team. He was put on a ventilator and is still unable to talk.
Recent incidents such as Mr. and Mrs. Edwards coming out about her battle with cancer and Senator McCain and his age and health are causing discussion of their ability to run the country. I felt that this unfortunate occurrence relates to these situations. Gov. Corzine is currently in office and has sustained many injuries that are very serious and is still on a ventilator prohibiting him from speaking. He also is just starting to recognize his family and become coherent. Although, doctors do think Corzine will make a successful recovery, they are not sure of how long it will take. I ask the class, with all talk about the candidates for presidency, do you think that people will now see Corzine as unfit to be Gov. Also, say he does make a successful recovery, will people still doubt his ablilty because of the extensive injuries he sustained? Furthermore, is it even fair to be judging Corzine for something that he could not control? Does this accident and his injuries make him any less fit for the job he currently holds?
If his recovery time becomes very long, what does everyone think should be done? Do we take this job away from him or allow him to continue to be governor even though he is still in the hospital? What would you want to see happen?
Recently, Governor Corzine of New Jersey was injured in a car accident. The article above explains how severly he was injured and also the details of the accident. The accident actually happened on his way from a meeting with Don Imus to another meeting with the Rutgers women's basketball team. He was put on a ventilator and is still unable to talk.
Recent incidents such as Mr. and Mrs. Edwards coming out about her battle with cancer and Senator McCain and his age and health are causing discussion of their ability to run the country. I felt that this unfortunate occurrence relates to these situations. Gov. Corzine is currently in office and has sustained many injuries that are very serious and is still on a ventilator prohibiting him from speaking. He also is just starting to recognize his family and become coherent. Although, doctors do think Corzine will make a successful recovery, they are not sure of how long it will take. I ask the class, with all talk about the candidates for presidency, do you think that people will now see Corzine as unfit to be Gov. Also, say he does make a successful recovery, will people still doubt his ablilty because of the extensive injuries he sustained? Furthermore, is it even fair to be judging Corzine for something that he could not control? Does this accident and his injuries make him any less fit for the job he currently holds?
If his recovery time becomes very long, what does everyone think should be done? Do we take this job away from him or allow him to continue to be governor even though he is still in the hospital? What would you want to see happen?
Monday, April 9, 2007
Image of Divorce.
So far this semester we have focused closely on how important the image of a President or politician is. The media these days really makes it a priority to disclose any positive or negative material on a leaders past and present personal life. It seems more so that we are drawn to the more gossip type information that is released. Marriage and relationships have been in the spotlight recently, and something we have discussed in our media profiles from past Presidents; their relationship with their wives and families. According to divorced statistics, the number of people who divorced quadrupled between the 1970’s and 1990's, and assuming the trend, divorce rates ore than likely have risen since then. According to a Newsweek article, there are people known as “values voters” following that up with the fact that Mitt Romney is the only presidential candidate that is still married “happily”. The former Massachusetts Republican Governor, Bill Weld is quoted by saying that Romney's family is “all kinds of clean”. (A word we have heard before using to describe a candidate’s image – what do you think about that?) The overall question I’m posing is, does divorce or a broken up family affect a politicians image in a damaging way during his campaign? Do your own values about families and divorce affect your perception and possibly your decision about a candidate? Do you think a person’s religion will tie into the aspect of “value’s voters” / How much? And lastly, image aside, do you think a person who has gone through a divorce or numerous divorces and marriages effects their actual job as a politician? Do you think that it is better to have a well rounded, somewhat perfect looking family as a candidate….or do you think that every family or relationship has issues that, without press attention it would go unnoticed, but assumed? Do you think the press exploits a politician personal life and relationships too much, turning the focus away from their actual issues and campaign?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17662271/site/newsweek/
- Lauren Trent.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17662271/site/newsweek/
- Lauren Trent.
Is Hillary really playing the gender card?
The Los Angeles Times recently featured a story about democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton. The news wasn’t about her latest stop on the campaign trail, a discussion of her issues, or even another awkward appearance that she had made. Instead, the LA Times addressed Mrs. Clinton’s obvious difference from her opponents; she is a woman and what that means for her campaign.
The article titled, “Clinton
The women’s vote is quite valuable. The article mentions, “in 2006, women accounted for 51% of votes cast, women represent as much as 60% of registered voters in early Democratic primary and caucus states” (Braun 1). The article also mentions other women’s groups that are aligning themselves with other candidates. In reality, all candidates go after the women’s vote. So how is Clinton
If you take a look at Hillary Clinton’s official website, the main page prominently displays what she calls a “Featured Action.” This featured action happens to be “Women for Hillary.” Is this what they mean by playing the gender card? Or perhaps it is the cute terms Clinton
In your opinion, do you think Hillary is really playing the gender card?
If you think Hillary is playing the gender card, do you think that it could hurt her chances with men as well as women? Do you think all the support from feminist groups is justified just because she is the only female candidate?
Related Article :
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-hillary7apr07,0,3339210,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Hillary Clinton’s official website :
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/
Should We Count McCain Out?
The once former Republican nomination front runner, John McCain is now struggling in the polls and placed last for fundraising between the top six candidates. In Chris Cillizza’s Washington Post blog entry (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/04/can_mccain_win.html?nav=rss_blog), he expresses the notion that McCain needs to find his footing in order to get back on top. Cillizza believes that even though McCain hasn’t had much success lately, it is still too early to count him out of the race. He supports this argument with a few main points. His first argument is that McCain’s campaign is organized. His campaign has constantly been unveiling new endorsements in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Another argument in McCain’s favor, is the Republican party history and how some candidates who ran unsuccessfully for its nomination for one election, were nominated in following years (Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole). Thirdly, McCain has already had some experience for running for President in the past. He knows how to pace his campaign, so he will be able to last for the long haul. Fourthly, McCain is a close second to Rudy Giuliani in most state surveys and national polls, so he definitely isn’t far out of voters’ minds. Lastly, McCain is a likeable candidate. Do you agree with Cillizza’s blog posting that it is too early to count McCain out? Why/why not? Is there anything else McCain has going for him not mentioned in Cillizza’s blog that could be used to his advantage?
McCain has realized he hasn’t been doing as well as he hoped and in a way to help bring back vigor into his campaign, this week McCain will begin to actively support the idea that the war in Iraq is winnable. He believes this will be the issue that defines his campaign. He argues that it is imperative for American security to have a victory in Iraq. Do you think by doing this, it will help to “reignite his stalling bid for the presidency” (Shear)? If you were in charge of McCain’s campaign, what would you do to breathe new life into his campaign? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/06/AR2007040602202.html
McCain has realized he hasn’t been doing as well as he hoped and in a way to help bring back vigor into his campaign, this week McCain will begin to actively support the idea that the war in Iraq is winnable. He believes this will be the issue that defines his campaign. He argues that it is imperative for American security to have a victory in Iraq. Do you think by doing this, it will help to “reignite his stalling bid for the presidency” (Shear)? If you were in charge of McCain’s campaign, what would you do to breathe new life into his campaign? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/06/AR2007040602202.html
Sunday, April 8, 2007
Limitations on Campaign Spending
A New York Times editorial recently addressed the issue of the primary and general presidential elections spending. Because of the excessive amounts of money that candidates spend on their campaigns and are given by wealthy private interest groups and individuals (especially during the primary election), the issue of whether or not there should be money limitations becomes an issue of great importance.It was recently reported in a Quarterly fund-rasing results report that Clinton has raised $26 million, Obama has raised $25 million and Romney has already raised $20 million while there is still 19 months left before the election (www.nytimes.com). It was said in the editorial that a candidate's ability to raise money for the election puts an automatic damper on the race because the more money a candidate is able to raise, the more likely to win the Presidency they are and this is then really just a representation of private interest group opinion rather than the general American public. (To read the article-http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/opinion/05thu1.html ).If a candidate is going to be able to use unlimited private funding for their campaign, then can it be said that the position of the president is given to the candidate who can raise the most money and not who would be best fit? And is the election controlled by the large corporations and wealthy private individuals who are able to give large amounts of money to the candidate of their choice and control public opinion this way?There was a Campaign Finance Law that was created, however it is optional for the candidates to abide by. (To read more about terms and conditions- http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/fecfeca.shtml#Disclosure ). Basically, if a candidate decides to agree to the terms of the Law, there are limitations made as to how much private funding they may receive and the amount they receive from Public funding is proportional to that. This way, the Presidential race is not descriminatory towards those who are not as fortunate in being given exessive amounts of money from private individuals and the election can be much fairer in that it does a better job in voicing the opinions of the public rather than just those large and wealthy corporations and individuals.Do you agree that this finance law should be made mandatory to all candidates? And also do you think it will be successful in controlling the election from being manipulated by the special interestests groups or individuals with significant financial recourses?
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Will Wife's Cancer Take Toll on Edwards?
Senator John Edwards announced on Thursday that his wife Elizabeth’s cancer had returned. She was first diagnosed with cancer in 2004 and doctors revealed last week that she now has stage IV cancer in the bone which is not curable but treatable. Edwards announced in a press conference with his wife that the campaign will continue. He stated that they had been through tough times before and have no intentions of cowering in the corner now.
There has been an overwhelming response from the public about his decision. Many think he should quit and dedicate his time to caring for his wife, while others feel his decision shows dedication and the will to continue with everyday life despite the illness. Elizabeth showed great optimism during the press conference stating that she did not feel or look sick and that she would continue to fully support her husband during this time.
What do you think of his decision to continue with the campaign?
We’ve discussed in class that many have criticized McCain for his health issues and his ability to serve the country with these problems if elected president. Do you think that if Edwards is elected president, his wife’s illness will have an effect on his ability to run the country? How do you think the other candidates will treat Edwards now? Will there be less “shots” taken at him and will other candidates be hesitant towards criticizing him during debates?
Many have also said that now Edwards will receive sympathy votes. A man wrote into the Cafferty File news segment that he’s a republican who now has decided to back Edwards because he’s been in his position and feels that Edwards’ decision shows how much personal character he has (Click on first link below and then Cafferty video on left hand side).
Finally, do you think that with this announcement Edwards will win enough support from the public (including the large amount of cancer survivors and family members of them) to put him in greater competition with Clinton and Obama?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/22/edwards.2008/index.html
Click on “Watch the couple explain future plans” posted in the article to see the press conference
Related article: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/22/schneider.edwards/index.html
There has been an overwhelming response from the public about his decision. Many think he should quit and dedicate his time to caring for his wife, while others feel his decision shows dedication and the will to continue with everyday life despite the illness. Elizabeth showed great optimism during the press conference stating that she did not feel or look sick and that she would continue to fully support her husband during this time.
What do you think of his decision to continue with the campaign?
We’ve discussed in class that many have criticized McCain for his health issues and his ability to serve the country with these problems if elected president. Do you think that if Edwards is elected president, his wife’s illness will have an effect on his ability to run the country? How do you think the other candidates will treat Edwards now? Will there be less “shots” taken at him and will other candidates be hesitant towards criticizing him during debates?
Many have also said that now Edwards will receive sympathy votes. A man wrote into the Cafferty File news segment that he’s a republican who now has decided to back Edwards because he’s been in his position and feels that Edwards’ decision shows how much personal character he has (Click on first link below and then Cafferty video on left hand side).
Finally, do you think that with this announcement Edwards will win enough support from the public (including the large amount of cancer survivors and family members of them) to put him in greater competition with Clinton and Obama?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/22/edwards.2008/index.html
Click on “Watch the couple explain future plans” posted in the article to see the press conference
Related article: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/22/schneider.edwards/index.html
Obama's link to the 1984 ad campaign posted on YouTube
In last week’s class we watched the ‘1984’ ad campaign that was against presidential Hillary Clinton. In an article posted on the Fox News website http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,260902,00.html stated that the creator of the advertisement had previously worked and lived with Obama’s Press Secretary last year. However they were working on a different campaign and not for Obama.
The advertisement was originally posted on the website anonymously and then Phillip de Vellis, the creator, admitted to The Huffington Post that he was responsible for creating the ad. Obama’s representatives have stated they had no knowledge of the creation of this advertisement. However, many people are skeptical now that new information has surfaced stating that de Vellis has ties to Obama’s current press secretary.
In this age of technology, virtually anyone has the ability to show negative advertisements or short films on the presidential candidates. YouTube makes it possible for these types of advertisements to air to a large group of potential voters. Since the candidates are trying to reach a younger audience and YouTube is used by younger viewers, do you think these types of advertisements can hurt the candidates?
With the ability to post anonymously on YouTube, virtually anyone can make negative advertisements about presidential candidates. Do you think that these advertisements will be appearing more frequently as the election gets closer? Do you think the candidates should or can try to control these types of negative campaigns on YouTube? What do you think the future will hold for such a technology driven campaign? Now that the elections are using myspace and YouTube do you think they will really reach the younger audiences?
The advertisement was originally posted on the website anonymously and then Phillip de Vellis, the creator, admitted to The Huffington Post that he was responsible for creating the ad. Obama’s representatives have stated they had no knowledge of the creation of this advertisement. However, many people are skeptical now that new information has surfaced stating that de Vellis has ties to Obama’s current press secretary.
In this age of technology, virtually anyone has the ability to show negative advertisements or short films on the presidential candidates. YouTube makes it possible for these types of advertisements to air to a large group of potential voters. Since the candidates are trying to reach a younger audience and YouTube is used by younger viewers, do you think these types of advertisements can hurt the candidates?
With the ability to post anonymously on YouTube, virtually anyone can make negative advertisements about presidential candidates. Do you think that these advertisements will be appearing more frequently as the election gets closer? Do you think the candidates should or can try to control these types of negative campaigns on YouTube? What do you think the future will hold for such a technology driven campaign? Now that the elections are using myspace and YouTube do you think they will really reach the younger audiences?
Donating Money to The Candidates
In class we have been talking a lot about how the 2008 presidential candidates are affording these longer campaign periods. The article “It’s Political March Madness” http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/23/schneider.march.madness/index.html talks about candidates racing all over the country trying to raise money all before the March 31st deadline ending the first quarter and point where campaigns have to report their funding totals to the Federal Election Commission.
This deadline is important to show who is leading because strong fundraising efforts are seen as a sign of political strength. Hilary Clinton has even gone so far to have her husband Bill record a message posted on her homepage about making an online contribution http://www.hillaryclinton.com/ where a video is shown of him saying the following…
“You know the only real reason to get involved in a campaign for president is that you believe a candidate will be the best president. Based on her experience, her commitment, her passion, her persistence, and her record, I know Hillary will be the best president. If you agree, I hope you will send in a contribution to support her campaign. And please do it by the March 31st deadline.” –Bill Clinton
It is an option to donate $10 to $2,300. Would you ever consider donating money online like this? Does Bill’s message convince you that this is an important way to support your choice candidate? What could other ways of supporting your choice candidate be?
Lastly, should it have been Hillary recording the message instead of Bill so he is not stealing her spotlight?
This deadline is important to show who is leading because strong fundraising efforts are seen as a sign of political strength. Hilary Clinton has even gone so far to have her husband Bill record a message posted on her homepage about making an online contribution http://www.hillaryclinton.com/ where a video is shown of him saying the following…
“You know the only real reason to get involved in a campaign for president is that you believe a candidate will be the best president. Based on her experience, her commitment, her passion, her persistence, and her record, I know Hillary will be the best president. If you agree, I hope you will send in a contribution to support her campaign. And please do it by the March 31st deadline.” –Bill Clinton
It is an option to donate $10 to $2,300. Would you ever consider donating money online like this? Does Bill’s message convince you that this is an important way to support your choice candidate? What could other ways of supporting your choice candidate be?
Lastly, should it have been Hillary recording the message instead of Bill so he is not stealing her spotlight?
Monday, March 19, 2007
What Will Be Hillary's Saving Grace?
It is no surprise that presidential candidate Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has faced great scrutiny and pressure from her fellow candidates, media, and the general public concerning her views on public policy and foreign decisions, should she be elected president. As more time passes in this rather premature electoral race, heavier issues have arised and even more publicly appealing candidates like Barak Obama find themselves recieving the same heat Clinton has.
However, Senator Clinton has had her fair share of challenges already with such issues like her now infamous 2002 response to the war in Iraq, where she approved President Bush's decision to use force in Iraq. As of now, she sticks to the response of "if I knew then what I know now," which still is not good enough for her left-winged critics and for many Americans who have grown bitter over years of failed promises and missions concering Iraq and the war that was supposed to concur terrorism. Aside from her foreign policy beliefs, there have been more recent questions of her domestic concerns, such as the issue on gay rights where she was under fire for not directly responding to whether or not homosexuality is immoral and her failure to support gay marriage.
Some of these issues are major setbacks for her camp for she must convince as many potential voters now to ensure that she has a chance at all to even be considered for the election. Already grappling the fact that she is not as popular as Obama and tends to be a bit too dry and stiff, there is concern that perhaps she is not capable of being presidential material.
So, the question that must be asked is what will save Hillary in the upcoming months? Is it the fact that she has admitted to her mistake in 2002 and is focused on "bringing the boys in Iraq home?" Could it be her efforts to reinforce the importance of education or work on the failed 'don't ask, don't tell' policy on gay civil rights? Perhaps, despite her views and plans, which are of great value without a doubt, there is one thing that is overlooked: her secret weapon. Her husband, former President Bill Clinton, who has been aggressively fundraising in the interest of his wife. As mentioned in this article in the New York Times ( http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/19/the-clinton-spin/ ), "No politicians raise money quite like the Clintons," and, they must be given this much, that they are excellent campaigners.
Do you think that Crazy Willy is capable of helping get his wife out of some of the mess she has gotten herself into and gain the approval of the skeptic lefts and not-so-sure public? Or is Hillary simply not cut out to be Presidential material?
(I suggest you look at the blog responses on the nytimes website to help with your argument, it is a good representation of both sides of the public opinion)
However, Senator Clinton has had her fair share of challenges already with such issues like her now infamous 2002 response to the war in Iraq, where she approved President Bush's decision to use force in Iraq. As of now, she sticks to the response of "if I knew then what I know now," which still is not good enough for her left-winged critics and for many Americans who have grown bitter over years of failed promises and missions concering Iraq and the war that was supposed to concur terrorism. Aside from her foreign policy beliefs, there have been more recent questions of her domestic concerns, such as the issue on gay rights where she was under fire for not directly responding to whether or not homosexuality is immoral and her failure to support gay marriage.
Some of these issues are major setbacks for her camp for she must convince as many potential voters now to ensure that she has a chance at all to even be considered for the election. Already grappling the fact that she is not as popular as Obama and tends to be a bit too dry and stiff, there is concern that perhaps she is not capable of being presidential material.
So, the question that must be asked is what will save Hillary in the upcoming months? Is it the fact that she has admitted to her mistake in 2002 and is focused on "bringing the boys in Iraq home?" Could it be her efforts to reinforce the importance of education or work on the failed 'don't ask, don't tell' policy on gay civil rights? Perhaps, despite her views and plans, which are of great value without a doubt, there is one thing that is overlooked: her secret weapon. Her husband, former President Bill Clinton, who has been aggressively fundraising in the interest of his wife. As mentioned in this article in the New York Times ( http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/19/the-clinton-spin/ ), "No politicians raise money quite like the Clintons," and, they must be given this much, that they are excellent campaigners.
Do you think that Crazy Willy is capable of helping get his wife out of some of the mess she has gotten herself into and gain the approval of the skeptic lefts and not-so-sure public? Or is Hillary simply not cut out to be Presidential material?
(I suggest you look at the blog responses on the nytimes website to help with your argument, it is a good representation of both sides of the public opinion)
Do Americans Want Experience?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/18/mccain.ap/index.html
As the race for presidential candidacy continues, new issues are being challenged. Seventy year old Republican candidate, John McCain, a man with much experience in politics and war is now being questioned about his age. McCain has served four terms as an Arizona senator topping his experience in politics. In addition, he served in Vietnam where he was severely injured and tortured by captors for 5 and a half years in prison.
McCain now walks with a slight limp, arthritis has set in whereas he cannot raise either arm above his head, and he also has fought three boughts of melanoma. Physicians note that people in their 70s face the "increased risk of mental impairment, ranging from mild memory loss that does not affect judgment to full-blown dementia that inhibits a person's ability to function in daily life. They also have a higher chance of chronic physical ailments such as high blood pressure, diabetes, arthritis, and cancer".
McCain fights back stating that he acknowledges his age, but is in great condition. He recently hiked the Grand Canyon, his mother who is 95 is still driving, and during his two-day Iowa bus tour, he talked non-stop with reporters, legislators, and Iowans.
Although McCain has proved his mental status is stable, do you think that his impairments and possible impairments should decline him from being selected to run for the campaign trail? Do you think that it is fair that Americans are so concerned about this issue now when FDR, who ended up being an outstanding president, was handicapped? It is also stated in the article that a release of health records as well as his appearance while campaigning will be the keys to deflecting suggestions that he may not be fit to serve. Do you think that this is right? Shouldn't Americans be more concerned about his intelligence, issues that he backs, and experience? Finally, if you were McCain what would you do in reaction to the media's concern about your age?
As the race for presidential candidacy continues, new issues are being challenged. Seventy year old Republican candidate, John McCain, a man with much experience in politics and war is now being questioned about his age. McCain has served four terms as an Arizona senator topping his experience in politics. In addition, he served in Vietnam where he was severely injured and tortured by captors for 5 and a half years in prison.
McCain now walks with a slight limp, arthritis has set in whereas he cannot raise either arm above his head, and he also has fought three boughts of melanoma. Physicians note that people in their 70s face the "increased risk of mental impairment, ranging from mild memory loss that does not affect judgment to full-blown dementia that inhibits a person's ability to function in daily life. They also have a higher chance of chronic physical ailments such as high blood pressure, diabetes, arthritis, and cancer".
McCain fights back stating that he acknowledges his age, but is in great condition. He recently hiked the Grand Canyon, his mother who is 95 is still driving, and during his two-day Iowa bus tour, he talked non-stop with reporters, legislators, and Iowans.
Although McCain has proved his mental status is stable, do you think that his impairments and possible impairments should decline him from being selected to run for the campaign trail? Do you think that it is fair that Americans are so concerned about this issue now when FDR, who ended up being an outstanding president, was handicapped? It is also stated in the article that a release of health records as well as his appearance while campaigning will be the keys to deflecting suggestions that he may not be fit to serve. Do you think that this is right? Shouldn't Americans be more concerned about his intelligence, issues that he backs, and experience? Finally, if you were McCain what would you do in reaction to the media's concern about your age?
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Trump Takes on the White House
Donald Trump held an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, on Friday and shared his views on politics. He called President Bush the "worst president in the history of the United States," Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld a "disaster" and continued to attack Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Vice President Dick Cheney (http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/03/trump-has-harsh-words-for-bush.html).
Trump continued to give his opinion that America should pull out of Iraq, that the country has made a mistake by going into Iraq, quoting: "one of the great catastrophes of all time." (check out the video of the interview).
Trump made comments in support of the current candidates running, such as calling Obama a "star" and Hillary "very talented." When asked if he would consider running for the presidency himself, Trump said that although he is not interested, it would "certainly be fun."
With all our recent blogs of Hollywood's involvement with politics, it's not a surprise that CNN would host an interview about the election and the war with Donald Trump. However, it goes back to the question of whether or not celebrities hold too much power and influence in the world of politics. Trump got tons of coverage on his interview and his opinions about Iraq, especially with his line that he would "fire Bush," over the Iraq invasion. More people know about The Apprentice and Donald Trump than they do political policies; with that in mind do you think that CNN should have celebrity guests speak on politics, or keep it to the politicians? How much credibility does a famous business tycoon have critiquing the Bush administration, especially when he's quoted as saying " I don't know what's going on. I just know they got us into a mess..." and then saying the presidency would sure be "fun and interesting." After all, celebrity opinions have a heavy weight on American minds, do you think it's fair Trump can call President Bush the worst president on national television? Finally, what do you think of Trump's interview making it in headline news on CNN, does America rely too heavily on celebrity trends?
Trump continued to give his opinion that America should pull out of Iraq, that the country has made a mistake by going into Iraq, quoting: "one of the great catastrophes of all time." (check out the video of the interview).
Trump made comments in support of the current candidates running, such as calling Obama a "star" and Hillary "very talented." When asked if he would consider running for the presidency himself, Trump said that although he is not interested, it would "certainly be fun."
With all our recent blogs of Hollywood's involvement with politics, it's not a surprise that CNN would host an interview about the election and the war with Donald Trump. However, it goes back to the question of whether or not celebrities hold too much power and influence in the world of politics. Trump got tons of coverage on his interview and his opinions about Iraq, especially with his line that he would "fire Bush," over the Iraq invasion. More people know about The Apprentice and Donald Trump than they do political policies; with that in mind do you think that CNN should have celebrity guests speak on politics, or keep it to the politicians? How much credibility does a famous business tycoon have critiquing the Bush administration, especially when he's quoted as saying " I don't know what's going on. I just know they got us into a mess..." and then saying the presidency would sure be "fun and interesting." After all, celebrity opinions have a heavy weight on American minds, do you think it's fair Trump can call President Bush the worst president on national television? Finally, what do you think of Trump's interview making it in headline news on CNN, does America rely too heavily on celebrity trends?
Sunday, March 4, 2007
Bill Clinton:Helping or Hurting Hillary?
Both Senator Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will be attending Sunday's commemoration of the historic 1965 Selma voting rights march. Hillary will be bringing her husband, former president, Bill Clinton, who is well-liked in the black community; which creates some solid competition for Obama. The question at hand here is whether or not Bill is helping or hurting Hillary. He is so well-liked, yet he might actually outshine his wife rather than giving her more attention. Also, although the black community generally liked Bill, who is to say they are truly loyal to Hillary. On Sunday Former president Clinton will be inducted into the Voting Rights Hall of Fame. This will be Bill and Hillary's first public appearance together since she announced she was running for the 2008 presidential election. It seems to me that this is a day to praise Bill Clinton, rather than a day to gain the loyalty and respect among the black community. Being that Obama is black, he has a very good chance with the black community, therefore using her husband to gain support might not work. In an ABC News-Washington Post survey taken last week it found that Obama was the choice of 44 percent of black democrats, while Hillary was the choice for 33 percent of black democrats, with a sampling error of plus or minus 8 percentage points. It will be interesting to see whether or not her husband helps or hurts her in the presidential election overall.
Article: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/02/clintons.obama/index.html
Article: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/02/clintons.obama/index.html
Obama's Family History with Slavery
Barack Obama's family past has recently come into some questioning. An article in the Baltimore Sun newspaper has reported that Obama's ancestors owned slaves. While Obama's father is from Kenya and his mother is from Kansas, records indicate that family on his mother's side owned slaves in Kansas during the 1850's. Obama's great-great-great-great grandfather George Washington Overall owned two slaves, as did his great-great-great-great-great grandmother, Mary Duvall. The information pertaining to the slaves were recorded by the Nelson City 1850 Census in Kansas. The research was conducted by William Addams Reitwiesner, who works for the Library of Congress and has access to such records. Reitwiesner has posted the information on his website with a disclaimer stating it was a "first draft." He went on to say that it would be further looked into if Obama was nominated. The Sun was able to essentially double track Reitwiesner's work through websites like ancestory.com and the Kentucky Library and Archives. Neither Obama himself or any relatives have made comment, referrence of indicated anything about his family history, but a Obama spokesman address the situation by claiming that Obama's ancestors "are representative of America."
It seems that Reitwiesner is using this information almost as blackmail; as if his research is serving as a teaser to intrigue the public and entice further investigations- but only if necessary, i.e only if Obama is elected.
Seeing that the press has had a very difficult time finding any real 'dirt' on Obama, do you think this kind of information will affect him during his campaigning?
Do you think it's a serious issue that he will have to address immediately, or do you think Obama will continue to ignore the actions of his ancestors? Could Obama use this to his advantage, using it to show how progressive our country has come since that time; that he cannot be held resposible for the actions of the past, but can be reponsible for the changes he can make if elected?
http://www.newmediajournal.us/politics.htm
http://www.wargs.com/political/
It seems that Reitwiesner is using this information almost as blackmail; as if his research is serving as a teaser to intrigue the public and entice further investigations- but only if necessary, i.e only if Obama is elected.
Seeing that the press has had a very difficult time finding any real 'dirt' on Obama, do you think this kind of information will affect him during his campaigning?
Do you think it's a serious issue that he will have to address immediately, or do you think Obama will continue to ignore the actions of his ancestors? Could Obama use this to his advantage, using it to show how progressive our country has come since that time; that he cannot be held resposible for the actions of the past, but can be reponsible for the changes he can make if elected?
http://www.newmediajournal.us/politics.htm
http://www.wargs.com/political/
Politicians looking to Hollywood...
Although it has been pretty clear for months that John McCain will be running for President, he unofficially announced on February 28, 2007 that he will be running for President on The David Letterman Show. The Senator of Arizona made this informal pre-announcement but his official declaration will be in April.
Besides his appearance on The David Letterman Show, Senator John McCain has also been on the show 24 and has hosted Saturday Night Live. Many other politicians have also made their way to major television. Rudy Giuliani has also hosted on Saturday Night Live and more recently Barack Obama has been a guest on Oprah.
Based on these television appearances do you think that Politicians are looking to Hollywood as a way to enhance their image?
With Al Gore joking about announcing on the Oscars and McCain announcing on David Letterman, do you think that political campaigns are getting further and further away from politics and leaning more towards Hollywood? Do you think this has gotten out of hand?
Finally, how do you feel about McCain pre-announcing his candidacy? Is a pre-announcement just used for more publicity because it gives people something to talk about?
Article:
http://www3.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/28/mccain.running/index.html
Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53caXQKTs9Y
Besides his appearance on The David Letterman Show, Senator John McCain has also been on the show 24 and has hosted Saturday Night Live. Many other politicians have also made their way to major television. Rudy Giuliani has also hosted on Saturday Night Live and more recently Barack Obama has been a guest on Oprah.
Based on these television appearances do you think that Politicians are looking to Hollywood as a way to enhance their image?
With Al Gore joking about announcing on the Oscars and McCain announcing on David Letterman, do you think that political campaigns are getting further and further away from politics and leaning more towards Hollywood? Do you think this has gotten out of hand?
Finally, how do you feel about McCain pre-announcing his candidacy? Is a pre-announcement just used for more publicity because it gives people something to talk about?
Article:
http://www3.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/28/mccain.running/index.html
Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53caXQKTs9Y
Monday, February 26, 2007
Looking to the Past
Over the past 30 years, Republicans have had greater success in supporting a presidential candidate during early polls than the Democrats. According to Gallup Polling, Republicans have successfuly supported early favorites in seven of the ten past elections. In contrast, early Deomocratic poll leaders such as Edmond Muskie (1972), George Wallace (1976), Ted Kennedy (1980), Gary Hart (1988) Mario Cuomo (1992) and Joe Lieberman (2004) were all favorites among the Democratic party, yet were not nominated.
Given the previous track record for both parties, this could serve as an indicator for early poll leaders for the upcoming election. Hillary Clinton is an early favorite for the Democratic nomination and since history has a way of repeating itself, could lead to a nomination of Barack Obama or John Edwards who are both providing very strong competition. In this respect, is Rudy Giuliani destined for the GOP's presidential nomination?
While the Republican party's success at getting behind early poll leaders is clearly evident, what in contrast to the Democrats gives them the edge? While luck certainly is a factor, I feel that the general mentality or state of each political party is a crucial factor. The Republican party has increasingly become a more unilateral regime of sorts, while the Democrats continue to struggle internally. It is then easier for a Republican nominee who is "on board" with the the party to achieve success than it is for a Democratic nominee who has virtually no chance of pleasing everyone. This being said, what do you think drives the success or failure of Republican and Democrat support of early poll leaders?...How can this affect "favorites" within the two parties as of now?
Link to article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17342927
Given the previous track record for both parties, this could serve as an indicator for early poll leaders for the upcoming election. Hillary Clinton is an early favorite for the Democratic nomination and since history has a way of repeating itself, could lead to a nomination of Barack Obama or John Edwards who are both providing very strong competition. In this respect, is Rudy Giuliani destined for the GOP's presidential nomination?
While the Republican party's success at getting behind early poll leaders is clearly evident, what in contrast to the Democrats gives them the edge? While luck certainly is a factor, I feel that the general mentality or state of each political party is a crucial factor. The Republican party has increasingly become a more unilateral regime of sorts, while the Democrats continue to struggle internally. It is then easier for a Republican nominee who is "on board" with the the party to achieve success than it is for a Democratic nominee who has virtually no chance of pleasing everyone. This being said, what do you think drives the success or failure of Republican and Democrat support of early poll leaders?...How can this affect "favorites" within the two parties as of now?
Link to article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17342927
Will Al Gore Run for President in 2008?
As many of you may know the 79th Academy Awards was broadcast on ABC last night, Sunday, February 25, 2007. For updates on yesterday evenings events and winners you can click here.
Years before the red carpet was rolled out, former vice president of the United States, Al Gore began his campaign in the fight against global warming. As Gore told David Letterman, he began this campaign in 1976 in front of congress and did not receive strong support for his cause. But this did not stop Gore from continuing his efforts towards change in the way we as humans treat global warming. He even went so far as to create the film, “An Inconvenient Truth," on the effects of global warming. The film won both best documentary feature and best original song. The first question I propose is: With Gore's movie taking home two Academy Awards, How do you think, if at all, this has effected Congress' view on the issue of global warming?
In addition to his film winning awards, he was also given the opportunity to declare the first time in the history of the Oscars they have gone green with Leonardo DiCaprio. Before he took the stage there were rumors that Gore may use this moment to announce his decision to run for President in 2008. At the Oscars, Gore dispelled any rumors floating around of his intentions to run when, in front of a crowd that was on the edge of their seats clapping loudly, he played a joke on all of the viewers instead.
According to Moviefone.com's article, Al Gore takes center stage at Oscars, Gore ushered the following statements:
"Even though I honestly had not planned on doing this, I guess with a billion people watching, it's as good a time as any," a seemingly deadly serious Gore intoned as he pulled a piece of paper from his pocket to read: "So, my fellow Americans, I'm going to take this opportunity right here and now to formally announce ..." Gore was then drowned out by the swell of music from the orchestra pit, and he and DiCaprio walked off stage arm-in-arm to raucous laughter."
Much to the crowd's dismay, Gore used his time with Leonardo DiCaprio to receive praise from both Dicaprio and the audience and to announce that he had no intentions to run for president in 2008. This leads me to my final question: Based on the heartfelt thoughts of DiCaprio and the overbearing applause Gore received from the audience, Do you think Gore will remain committed to not running for President in 2008?
Years before the red carpet was rolled out, former vice president of the United States, Al Gore began his campaign in the fight against global warming. As Gore told David Letterman, he began this campaign in 1976 in front of congress and did not receive strong support for his cause. But this did not stop Gore from continuing his efforts towards change in the way we as humans treat global warming. He even went so far as to create the film, “An Inconvenient Truth," on the effects of global warming. The film won both best documentary feature and best original song. The first question I propose is: With Gore's movie taking home two Academy Awards, How do you think, if at all, this has effected Congress' view on the issue of global warming?
In addition to his film winning awards, he was also given the opportunity to declare the first time in the history of the Oscars they have gone green with Leonardo DiCaprio. Before he took the stage there were rumors that Gore may use this moment to announce his decision to run for President in 2008. At the Oscars, Gore dispelled any rumors floating around of his intentions to run when, in front of a crowd that was on the edge of their seats clapping loudly, he played a joke on all of the viewers instead.
According to Moviefone.com's article, Al Gore takes center stage at Oscars, Gore ushered the following statements:
"Even though I honestly had not planned on doing this, I guess with a billion people watching, it's as good a time as any," a seemingly deadly serious Gore intoned as he pulled a piece of paper from his pocket to read: "So, my fellow Americans, I'm going to take this opportunity right here and now to formally announce ..." Gore was then drowned out by the swell of music from the orchestra pit, and he and DiCaprio walked off stage arm-in-arm to raucous laughter."
Much to the crowd's dismay, Gore used his time with Leonardo DiCaprio to receive praise from both Dicaprio and the audience and to announce that he had no intentions to run for president in 2008. This leads me to my final question: Based on the heartfelt thoughts of DiCaprio and the overbearing applause Gore received from the audience, Do you think Gore will remain committed to not running for President in 2008?
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Show me the Money
This past weekend Democratic candidate Tom Vilsack decided to drop out of the 2008 election race and declared that the only reason why he did so was because he wouldn't have the budget to sustain himself during the race. "It's money, and only money, that is the reason we are leaving today," said Tom Vilsack.
With the insane amounts of money that go into a campaign, it begs one to ask the question of whether or not the right people are running for office, or is it just those who can afford to? I know that we live in a country where those with the money have the power, although when I think about it, I also ask myself are these the best people for the job (the presidency), or are they just the ones with the most cash?
Compared other running Democrat, Barack Obama who netted around $1. 3 million in just one fundraising appearence, Tom Vilsack only pulled around $1 million in 2006 alone and ended the year with around $396,000 in his bankroll.
When Bush ran for re-election in 2004 the total cost of his campaign was around $419 million. An executive director for the Center of Responsive Politics, a group which tracks money in politics said that if predicitions hold true, the cost for the republican and democratic nominees will double from what it was last time.
Link to article - http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/23/vilsack.money/index.html
With the insane amounts of money that go into a campaign, it begs one to ask the question of whether or not the right people are running for office, or is it just those who can afford to? I know that we live in a country where those with the money have the power, although when I think about it, I also ask myself are these the best people for the job (the presidency), or are they just the ones with the most cash?
Compared other running Democrat, Barack Obama who netted around $1. 3 million in just one fundraising appearence, Tom Vilsack only pulled around $1 million in 2006 alone and ended the year with around $396,000 in his bankroll.
When Bush ran for re-election in 2004 the total cost of his campaign was around $419 million. An executive director for the Center of Responsive Politics, a group which tracks money in politics said that if predicitions hold true, the cost for the republican and democratic nominees will double from what it was last time.
Link to article - http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/23/vilsack.money/index.html
Monday, February 19, 2007
Should Past Hurt Candidates
Recently, 2008 Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been touring the country since their announcements to run for President. In addition, possible candidate John McCain and his committee have also been participating in a nation wide tour.
During these tours the candidates are just attempting to receive a positive image from voters as they hope to become the next to grab the helm in Whitehouse. All are forced to answer questions that make the public uneasy or have the public questioning their judgments. Hillary has to answer questions on her husband and his effects in office, while Obama must talk about his qualifications in foreign affairs. Both must answer difficult questions and must do so with confidence so that they come out of each tour with a lasting impression in voters’ minds.
While touring, Hillary has been bashed throughout her tour in New Hampshire and have many asking her about her support and vote in favor of the Iraq War, which can be seen in this article or video on CNN.com website. While Obama is smiling ear to ear as he has been opposed of the war from the beginning and is using that as a tactic while campaigning throughout the United States. Probable candidate, John McCain was recently bombarded with questions concerning his vote to prompt a United States invasion of Iraq, seen here in a New York Times video.
This has brewed up some controversy begging me to ask the question, should previous votes from past years have any effect on their campaigns today. Is it fair for the public and media to criticize McCain and Clinton for their votes in favor of the war at a time when Americans were looking to punish anyone for 9/11? At the same time, is it right for Obama to use his stance against the war to create a positive campaign?
Kellan O'Neill
During these tours the candidates are just attempting to receive a positive image from voters as they hope to become the next to grab the helm in Whitehouse. All are forced to answer questions that make the public uneasy or have the public questioning their judgments. Hillary has to answer questions on her husband and his effects in office, while Obama must talk about his qualifications in foreign affairs. Both must answer difficult questions and must do so with confidence so that they come out of each tour with a lasting impression in voters’ minds.
While touring, Hillary has been bashed throughout her tour in New Hampshire and have many asking her about her support and vote in favor of the Iraq War, which can be seen in this article or video on CNN.com website. While Obama is smiling ear to ear as he has been opposed of the war from the beginning and is using that as a tactic while campaigning throughout the United States. Probable candidate, John McCain was recently bombarded with questions concerning his vote to prompt a United States invasion of Iraq, seen here in a New York Times video.
This has brewed up some controversy begging me to ask the question, should previous votes from past years have any effect on their campaigns today. Is it fair for the public and media to criticize McCain and Clinton for their votes in favor of the war at a time when Americans were looking to punish anyone for 9/11? At the same time, is it right for Obama to use his stance against the war to create a positive campaign?
Kellan O'Neill
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Politics and comedy?
How do you all feel about shows like the daily show and the colbert report using a comedic approach to politics. Not being a huge fan of watching the news, I can admit that like most young people, I get the most political knowledge from The daily show. Do you think that shows like this are making people think politics and matters which shape are world are not as important because we can laugh at them, or does it help to reach out to an audience that which otherwise might ignore political matters. After watching even a small dose of news its always clear to me that I need to start being more focused on politics but do news shows who poke fun at politics take away from the importance of politics?
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/index.jhtml
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_colbert_report/index.jhtml
Not real news, fake news stories but very a very funny take on politics http://www.theonion.com/content/politics
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/index.jhtml
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_colbert_report/index.jhtml
Not real news, fake news stories but very a very funny take on politics http://www.theonion.com/content/politics
Monday, February 12, 2007
Australian PM bad mouths Obama
There has been a recent war of words between Senator Barack Obama and the most unlikely of people the Australian Prime Minister John Howard. Mr. Howard recently said that is he were in al Qaeda he would welcome Obama's victory in the upcoming 2008 elections. Obama fired back saying Howard's words were "empty rhetoric." He countered Howards statements by saying if Howard was really tough on terrorism he would 20,000 more troops to Iraq. Currently there are about 1,000 Australian troops in Iraq mostly in non-combat roles. Congressmen from both parties have expressed views in opposition to the Australian Prime Minister's remark.
Obama's has finally formally announced his presidency and I personally find it odd that he is drawing criticism from a foreign head of state so soon after having declared his candidacy. Obama has had little experience in the field of combatting terrorism as a congressman but it does not make him a godsend for al Qaeda as Howard would put it. I personally feel that it really is no other country's business who we as American's nominate and elect for any public office. The Prime Minister is criticizing some one he does not even know and even if Obama is elected I do not see how his election would be detrimental to the United States or Australia.
What is your opinion on the Prime Minister's criticism of Sen. Barack Obama? Do you think a foreign head of state should attack a presidential candidate in an American election?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/12/obama.comment/index.html
Obama's has finally formally announced his presidency and I personally find it odd that he is drawing criticism from a foreign head of state so soon after having declared his candidacy. Obama has had little experience in the field of combatting terrorism as a congressman but it does not make him a godsend for al Qaeda as Howard would put it. I personally feel that it really is no other country's business who we as American's nominate and elect for any public office. The Prime Minister is criticizing some one he does not even know and even if Obama is elected I do not see how his election would be detrimental to the United States or Australia.
What is your opinion on the Prime Minister's criticism of Sen. Barack Obama? Do you think a foreign head of state should attack a presidential candidate in an American election?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/12/obama.comment/index.html
Political Communication at the Grammys...?
Political communication seems to have channeled itself through an unexpected forum. Anyone who watched the 2007 Grammy awards last night knows the Dixie Chicks cleaned up, taking home 5 awards, including the coveted "Album of the Year" and "Song of the Year." The "Song of the Year" award was for their single, "Not Ready to Make Nice," the band's response to backlash from the country music industry and conservative fans for Natalie Maines's criticism of President Bush and the Iraq War. (If you missed that story, or need a reminder- in early 2003 Maines told a London concert audience that the Dixie Chicks were ashamed the President of the U.S. was from Texas, their home state as well). After their criticism, the industry forced Maines to apologize and pretty much kicked the Dixie Chicks out of the genre. Once the biggest selling country band, country radio stations started refusing to play their records and the Country Music Awards wouldn't recognize their music last November.
Upon repeated trips to the stage to accept their awards, the Dixie Chicks acknowledged that they believed their success last night was just as attributable to politics and support for their beliefs as it was to the quality of their music. "I think people are using their freedom of speech with all these awards. We get the message," said Maines.
Finally, the Dixie Chicks' message seemed to ring out as well. It's OK to disapprove of the President and to voice your opinion. To openly disagree is just as patriotic and American as it is to agree. The only problem is, that's not the credo of the Bush Administration or many conservatives who like to have strict control over "the message."
To me, it's interesting that a political debate (the war in Iraq/free speech) could end up at the center (at least in the opinion of Natalie Maines) of the Grammy Awards. I'm sure when people turned on their television sets last night to see who'd get to perform with Justin Timberlake, they weren't expecting to be receivers of political communication...but they were. It just goes to show, that as large a role as the traditional news media plays and as carefully as politicians try to craft their image, often political communication reaches people through pop culture. Actors, comedians and musicians- some of the people with the farthest reaching voices- are shaping the political debate.
What does this mean for American politics as a whole and for individual politicians trying to shape their own media image?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Music/02/11/grammy.awards/index.html
-Kim Pedersen
Upon repeated trips to the stage to accept their awards, the Dixie Chicks acknowledged that they believed their success last night was just as attributable to politics and support for their beliefs as it was to the quality of their music. "I think people are using their freedom of speech with all these awards. We get the message," said Maines.
Finally, the Dixie Chicks' message seemed to ring out as well. It's OK to disapprove of the President and to voice your opinion. To openly disagree is just as patriotic and American as it is to agree. The only problem is, that's not the credo of the Bush Administration or many conservatives who like to have strict control over "the message."
To me, it's interesting that a political debate (the war in Iraq/free speech) could end up at the center (at least in the opinion of Natalie Maines) of the Grammy Awards. I'm sure when people turned on their television sets last night to see who'd get to perform with Justin Timberlake, they weren't expecting to be receivers of political communication...but they were. It just goes to show, that as large a role as the traditional news media plays and as carefully as politicians try to craft their image, often political communication reaches people through pop culture. Actors, comedians and musicians- some of the people with the farthest reaching voices- are shaping the political debate.
What does this mean for American politics as a whole and for individual politicians trying to shape their own media image?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Music/02/11/grammy.awards/index.html
-Kim Pedersen
Will Obama Go Up in Smoke?
Fox News and Friends recently aired an entire segment where John Gibson said that voters shouldn't vote for Obama because he is a smoker. He had on guests to discuss Obama's "dirty little secret," and if people would vote for a smoker as President. At one point in the segment Fox airs a picture of Obama in front of the White House with two packs of Marlboro cigarettes next to him posing the question "Would You Vote For a Smoker?" The title of this graphic is "Obama Behind Closed Doors." Gibson also invites the fact that since Obama is a smoker and has this "dirty little secret," how much can we really know about him and what else is he hiding? The topic of Obama as a smoker has stirred up some controversy, especially with those who are trying to find holes in Obama's armor.
I also found an article from the Houston Chronicle, of an opinion piece where the author stated that her hopes for Obama as a candidate were crushed after she learned of his smoking, saying in the article that " She would never date a smoker and won't vote for one either."
The Washington Post also ran an article stating that Michelle Obama is appalled by her husbands smoking habit and will only help him run if he quits smoking, perhaps the campaigns attempt at some damage control.
How do you feel about this controversy? Would the fact that a canidate smoked turn you off from voting for them? Are we continuing to stray from the big issues and focusing on all the wrong issues? Do you think that Obama's habit will hurt him politically and force him to "go up in smoke?"
I also found an article from the Houston Chronicle, of an opinion piece where the author stated that her hopes for Obama as a candidate were crushed after she learned of his smoking, saying in the article that " She would never date a smoker and won't vote for one either."
The Washington Post also ran an article stating that Michelle Obama is appalled by her husbands smoking habit and will only help him run if he quits smoking, perhaps the campaigns attempt at some damage control.
How do you feel about this controversy? Would the fact that a canidate smoked turn you off from voting for them? Are we continuing to stray from the big issues and focusing on all the wrong issues? Do you think that Obama's habit will hurt him politically and force him to "go up in smoke?"
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Government Perks
On Thursday white house spokesman Tony Snow released a statement defending House speaker Nancy Pelosi (democrat) who has come under criticism for requesting a large Air Force transport plane to take her back and forth from her home in San Francisco. After the events of 9/11 the Pentagon felt it was important to provide the House speaker (who is second in the line of presidential succession) with a military plane for added security during trips back home. Former speaker Rep. J. Dennis Hastert, Illinois Republican started using U.S. Air Force planes for domestic travel to and from his district. Republicans have taken issue with her request for such a large plane. According to Pelosi, the story had been completely fabricated, and she requested the large plane so that she wouldn't have to stop to refuel. How do you feel about her request? Do you think government officials should enjoy such privileges? Do you feel that this is a necessary security issue, or an unnecessary luxury that our tax dollars are paying for?
http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/white-house-defends-pelosi-plane-request/20070208065909990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001
http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/white-house-defends-pelosi-plane-request/20070208065909990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001
Monday, February 5, 2007
Although we are still just under two years from the next Presidential election, there are already a well-known group of people who have made public their decision to run on the 2008 ballot. Leading the pack for the Democratic Party are Senators Hilary Clinton and Barak Obama, who have recieved a great deal of attention from the media and the public. It has become apparent that members from both side of the aisle are realizing that they may have the competative edge when the primaries begin if they start campaigning now. In the absense of the incumbant president running for re-election, the 2008 is starting to look like a close run even in February of 2007. Just this week, former NYC mayor, Rudolph Guliani has made it known that he is ready to through his hat in the race, which futher stirs things up given his popularity among voters both in New York and around the country.
Discuss whether is it important for any candidate interested in running for President in 2008 to be one of the first to declare their candidacy and how a two year span of campaigning can help them or hurt them. Also, try to add what tactics they can use early on to gain voter support and positive recognition. As we discussed in class, once on the campaign trail, they are constantly having their every move followed and scrutinized. Sometimes too much attention may not be the best thing.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/20/hillary.clinton.ap/index.html (Clinton article)
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/15/presidential.bids/index.html (McCain aritcle)
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/05/giuliani.2008.ap/index.html (Guliani article)
Discuss whether is it important for any candidate interested in running for President in 2008 to be one of the first to declare their candidacy and how a two year span of campaigning can help them or hurt them. Also, try to add what tactics they can use early on to gain voter support and positive recognition. As we discussed in class, once on the campaign trail, they are constantly having their every move followed and scrutinized. Sometimes too much attention may not be the best thing.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/20/hillary.clinton.ap/index.html (Clinton article)
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/15/presidential.bids/index.html (McCain aritcle)
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/05/giuliani.2008.ap/index.html (Guliani article)
Internet: Friend or Foe to Politics
By John Radzinski
Running for president today seems to be more difficult than ever before. Not because of fundraising or anything like that, but because of the advent of the internet, and specifically Youtube.com. Think about the effect youtube had on Howard Dean’s presidential run (http://youtube.com/watch?v=D5FzCeV0ZFc). He was one of the leading democratic candidates, but then he got fired up… Recently, former Republican Senator of Virginia, Jim Webb, was hit with a media blitz after using the word “macaca” as an ethnic slur (http://youtube.com/watch?v=r90z0PMnKwI). He ended up losing his seat in the senate in the 2006 gubernatorial elections to his democratic opponent by only 1% of the vote. Surely youtube played a part in that. And most recently Hillary Clinton made her “evil and bad men comment” which was quickly posted on youtube and became a media frenzy for several days (http://youtube.com/watch?v=g3Rf1ZUdUnE).
But, as this article mentions (http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/columnists/chi-0702010441feb02,1,4297825.column?coll=chi-technologyreviews-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true) candidates can find good uses for the Internet. I wonder is the Internet a good thing for candidates or a bad thing?
Friday, January 26, 2007
Welcome!
This site is hosted by Prof. Lisa Burns and her Political Communication class. If you have something to say about politics & media, post here!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)