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
Sunday, March 25, 2007
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
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)