As I mentioned yesterday, I sent an e-mail to Mark Luckie from 10,000 Words explaining our class simulation to him and asking for his advice for The Atlantic Online. Here's what he wrote back:
I took a look at [The Atlantic] and believe the site has fallen victim to a common problem among magazines making a transition to the web: simply importing print copy and treating multimedia as an afterthought. The site could place multimedia stories side by side with print stories, but label them with small icons (i.e. video, podcasts). Also, the multimedia section has everything labeled as podcasts or slideshows, when in actually a substantial number of stories are actually video. Those users looking for video will appreciate the differentiation.
Most importantly, the Atlantic would benefit from a diversity of media tools. Static graphics could be turned into interactive graphics, photos can be turned into slideshows. It's up to the staff to both learn these new technologies and to decide what technology best presents the story.
As I was reading today's post on 10,000 words about maps and YouTube, I got to thinking about how online newspapers could better utilize tools like Google Maps. A lot of multimedia sites, now, use something called Geo-Tagging. For example, I use Flickr for my photography and I geo-tag some of my photos, placing them on a map exactly where I took them. That way, when anyone wants to browse something like photos I took in Europe, they can literally click on Big Ben, the Eiffel Tower or the Colosseum, and all my photos taken there will pop up. Of course, that's just with Flickr, but by making a custom map using Google Maps, you can literally geo-tag anything, even news stories.
In class we were talking about ways to make the Atlantic more relevant locally, and I was thinking that an interactive map (probably relegated to a side-bar somewhere on the site) might be a cool way to get people interacting with the site and finding news that's relevant to them. As it turns out, the Associated Press already has a Google Map, and I'm sure other news resources do as well. Maybe something like this could be incorporated onto The Atlantic's site so that after getting the national headlines, people could literally zoom in on their state (even on their neighborhood) and see what's going on near them.
To get an idea of some of the Google Maps already out there, check out the Google Maps Directory.
Courtney e-mailed me a link to this great blog called 10,000 Words about multimedia journalism. The author of the blog, Mark Luckie, posts every day about new media and journalism, which is definitely helpful to everyone on The Atlantic team in our class.
I've sent an e-mail to Mr. Luckie and will hopefully be hearing back soon with his ideas which I'll post here.
This is kind of interesting. It's a YouTube channel called Citizen News that's basically a compilation of the best news stories on YouTube from citizen journalists across the country.
"The Fix," a political blog from The Washington Post, has chosen its top 10 picks for Republican nominee in 2012. Noticably absent from the list was Sarah Palin. Is it possible she'll stay in Alaska? Probably not.
Here's the list of the top ten:
10. Steve Poizner 9. Haley Barbour 8. Jon Huntsman Jr. 7. Eric Cantor 6. Mark Sanford 5. Bob McDonnell 4. Mitch Daniels 3. Mitt Romney 2. John Thune 1. Bobby Jindal
So far, it seems like the media loves Jindal even though he's a (gasp) Republican. To read a profile on each of the picks that "The Fix" came up with, check out this article on the 10 Republicans to watch.
Check out this vintage McCain SNL skit HERE (embedding was disabled, so you have to go to the site).
It definitely made me start to wonder... where did McCain's personality go? He lacked any real personal attributes all the way up until the very end of campaign season, but every once in a while we get a little glimmer of what might be a kinda, sorta, maybe just a little bit... likable guy. It seems he might actually be funny and... personable?
Remember back when we were talking about humor in the election and wondering how we would ever be able to turn Obama into something funny? Here's the answer:
The people over at News Hounds are outraged by the new promo ad for FOX News. Using the line, "As your world changes, stay with FOX" along with a series of extremely negative images definitely gives off the wrong message as we approach the presidency of someone who ran on a campaign of hope. Check it out for yourselves here:
If you ask me, I think they were just trying to grab people's attention using the same techniques they use in previews for shows like 24. It definitely could have been a little better thought out though.
Apparently the idea of running for president again is not in McCain's four-year plan. At least not according to this video where he laughs hysterically at the very idea:
I started to wonder, though, what if he did run in 2012? Since losing... well, since a few days before losing when he appeared on Saturday Night Live making fun of himself, McCain has somehow become so much more likable. He made us laugh on SNL, he gave a gracious concession speech, and he has gone out of his way to support Obama in his soon-to-be presidency. Hasn't he already started winning over America?
According to the article, "The Real McCain" in The Huffington Post, no he hasn't. As I read this article that tears down every single endearing thing McCain has done since the election, it made me think of the way we have criticized the conservative media for trying to rile people up, and I think that Robert J. Elisberg, the author of this article, did very much the same thing but from a liberal standpoint. In fact, while I agreed with some of Elisberg's points, I found his article a little off-putting in the same way I find some of the things I see on FOX News off-putting.
So first of all, I'd like to explain my recent disappearance from the blog world. I've had an extremely unlucky Fall with my computer dying and then me getting the flu not once but twice, all in under a month! Having been extremely sick recently, I'll be perfectly honest and say that I've been living a "media-free" life these past few days. I haven't been on the internet, I haven't listened to the radio, and I haven't watched the news. In fact, I don't think I've really even been out of my house. I think it should therefore go without saying that I am fairly "out of the loop."
That being said, I thought this was an interesting poll on what TV news source people trust most. Brace yourselves.... it's FOX.
I really didn't want to believe it, so I checked it out on a few more websites, and apparently it really is true. This reminded me of election night just a few weeks ago when I tried to watch the election coverage with my dad (a die-hard Republican). We had to separate and watch on different TVs after about 10 minutes because my dad would not change the channel from FOX. Why? Because, "It's the only network you can trust not to be biased." Those were his exact words. At first I thought he was joking, but he wasn't. Not even sort of.... He went on to call some of the other news anchors communists, then left the room to watch FOX by himself.
Do Americans really trust FOX over the other networks? I really don't care if people are Republicans or Democrats, but doesn't everyone know FOX is biased? If you're out there reading this, wondering what I'm talking about, check this out:
A priest in South Carolina wrote a letter to his parishioners advising them not to receive communion if they voted for "Barack Hussein Obama" and are unwilling to ask forgiveness for their "material cooperation with intrinsic evil."
I find it really disturbing how much God has come into play in this election. First he asked Sarah Palin to be Vice President (and now to run for Senate), and now he's apparently withholding communion from Obama voters! What happened to the separation of church and state?
One of the ways in which the media is holding on to the last threads of the election frenzy is by scoring the first post-election interviews from the candidates. John McCain chose to give his first post-election interview to Jay Leno from NBC. Check out some highlights here:
Sarah Palin gave her first interview to Greta Van Susteren from FOX News. To read some of the highlights, click HERE.
As for our president-elect, Barack Obama, the press is all over him and his family, covering topics from his meeting with George and Laura Bush, to what breed of dog he will choose to take to the White House and why.
My guess is that as we move farther and farther away from the election, the media will start covering increasingly ridiculous stories just to keep up the hype. Case in point: BBC News - Choosing the First Puppy.
It has been interesting in these past couple days to read about the international response to Obama's election win. The overall response has been extremely positive, with newspaper headlines across the world declaring Barack Obama the bringer of peace and prosperity to the globe. According to The Boston Globe's article "Much of the world exults in Obama", "...the reaction of US friends and foes alike suggests that Obama will receive a level of international good will not seen by a US president since John F. Kennedy."
Also in that same article was a quote from Douglas Brinkley, a history professor at Rice University, who said "No president of a country as powerful as the United States has ever been seen as such a unifying figure.... Most of the world sees Barack Obama as their leader. . . . It's a gigantic burden on his shoulders."
These are some pretty enormous responsibilities being put on Obama! Can you imagine if the entire world was expecting you to lead them? I hate to be a downer, but if everyone has expectations this high, isn't that likely to lead to unwarranted disappointment? It's like the opposite of what happened with Sarah Palin in the vice presidential debate. She made it through without completely humiliating herself, so we were all impressed.
I am confident that Obama will be a great president, but with the entire world putting him up an an enormous pedestal, I have to admit that I'm a little worried. We're involved in two wars and the worst economic crisis most of us have ever seen... and we're all expecting a miracle on January 20th.
Now that the election is over, McCain insiders can start leaking details about what went wrong, specifically with Sarah Palin. Check out this video from Fox News:
Apparently, even McCain campaigners felt that the questions asked by Katie Couric were fair, it was Sarah Palin's lack of knowledge that proved her inexperience, not unfair "gotcha" journalism. I think it will be interesting to hear more of this story now that insiders don't have to continue keeping quiet about Palin.
CNN, which has been really conservative with its reporting tonight, has just predicted that Obama will "sail past 300" electoral votes, winning the race by a large margin.
CBS just gave New Mexico to Obama about 5 or 10 minutes ago, but now CNN is saying they think it's going to McCain. I really want to know more about their criteria for calling a state.
I figured that as I watch the election coverage, I'd write a few quick posts about what I'm seeing.
I just saw Katie Couric on CBS talking to Kelly Cobiella who was reporting from Florida State University, where a lot of students showed up to vote today. They talked about how many students voted because of things like Facebook (which provided an easy link to online voter registration forms). I registered to vote four years ago when I turned 18, but I know that a number of my friends who didn't vote in the last election registered through Facebook. At first this seemed a little weird to me, but social networking sites are such an enormous part of many young peoples' daily lives that it's amazing how big of an impact a Facebook ad could have on something as important as voter turnout.
I was scanning through some news headlines on elections and came across an article entitled "Liberal media bias is the fault of conservatives." I thought this would be an interesting article to read, for the sole purpose of seeing how Liberals were going to paint Conservatives as the engines of their own demise (this being the bias). After reading the brief article though, I think it's not entirely off the mark. There have been plenty of conservative news sources saying "negative" things about McCain's campaign. These remarks get recorded as negative media coverage for McCain/Palin, and then the same people who said them in the first place quote the very study they contributed to as evidence of a "liberal media bias."
I don't know if I would go as far as to say that the liberal media bias is the fault of the conservatives, but they certainly do play a role in it themselves that they often fail to acknowledge.
Sorry for disappearing for so long. I've been away for the past week and a half and thought I would have internet access during my trip but did not. Anyway, I'm completely out of the loop of what's going on with the election, so I'm going to get myself caught up and start posting again ASAP.
Recently on the Howard Stern show, someone went around Harlem interviewing people about who they're going to vote for. The trick was that the interviewer attributed all of McCain's views to Obama and people still said they agreed with him.
When discussing the effects of humor and satire on politics, everyone immediately thinks of shows like The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and SNL as well as all sorts of political cartoons and caricatures, but what about adult cartoon shows?
Shows like "The Simpsons" and "Family Guy" are cartoons, so they can go anywhere and do anything, and somehow get away with completely inappropriate jokes that live-action shows wouldn't dare to touch.
Here are a couple great examples of election-related scenes from both these FOX shows (interesting that they're both on FOX... right?).
Homer Simpson tries to vote for Obama:
Stewie goes to Berlin, where the Nazis support McCain-Palin: **So far, 3 different versions of this video that I've used have been taken down from YouTube, and the ONLY place I could find it is HERE**
Considering how many people watch these shows, I think it's fair to say that episodes like the ones above do have an impact on Americans. Probably not enough of one to sway a person's vote, however, but I'm sure it does have some effect on peoples' overall opinions of the candidates.
I'm sure you've all seen Sarah Palin on SNL by now, but just in case you haven't I'm going to post it here.
But first... you have to watch this video of Mark Wahlberg and Jimmy Kimmel (it makes the SNL video make more sense):
Sarah Palin on SNL:
Wow, what a brilliant idea (and I'm not being sarcastic). For Sarah Palin to get in on the joke was such a fantastic move. She knows that America loves Tina Fey's SNL impressions of her, so rather than fighting against it, she got in on the fun. I think this is a great example of the way campaigns work the media. Whoever at the McCain campaign decided to send Palin to SNL deserves an enormous raise.
Anyway, thanks, Sarah, for being such a good sport. I hate you just a tiny bit less now.
Most Americans are exposed to political satire one way or another, whether by watching Comedy Central news shows like "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" or reading magazines and newspapers with political cartoons. What does satire really do to politics and people's opinions, though?
When people watch "The Colbert Report," for example, most of them realize that it is a "spoof" of conservative opinions shows like The O'ReillyFactor, and therefore anything Stephen Colbert says is taken as a joke. But what about people who don't understand the premise of the show? Colbert spends a full half-hour pretending to be a radical Republican with some really extreme viewpoints, but what if people don't get it?
That's what happened recently with The New Yorker, according to this NPR article. This past July, The New Yorker used this cartoon as its cover art:
Of course this picture was not meant to be serious, but even people who "got it" thought it went too far. So where do you have to draw the line with political satire? Why is it okay for someone like Colbert to frequently say all sorts of derogatory, offensive things in the name of humor, while The New Yorker gets slammed for the above cover?
Ideally, satire is intended to bring about improvement by means of pointing out a flaw in society (such as the racism and ignorance depicted above) but sometimes it serves the opposite purpose and reinforces negative stereotypes.
Where does the media draw the line? I think the answer is that they use their best judgment and sometimes get it wrong. Luckily, for publications like The New Yorker, they just wait a week and put something new, and less offensive out in their next issue. They get a little bad press and move on, but at what cost to the people fighting against these stereotypes?
I watched the debate last night, taking notes on what each candidate said to make sure I didn't forget anything, and when I finished (5 typed pages later) I realized I had completely wasted my time. Anyone who watched the last two debates can probably guess what was said this time around, too.
There were a couple important things that happened, though.
I was so glad that Obama finally responded to the Bill Ayers and ACORN issues. Anyone who is well-informed on the election knows already that Obama does not pal around with terrorists, nor is he trying to mess with the voting system. Last night, however, McCain said that Obama is involved with these things that are "destroying the fabric of democracy," and unfortunately, a lot of people believe him! When Obama responded, though, in such a widely televised and viewed debate, I think he made a very convincing argument that set the record straight on his association with Ayers and ACORN.
I think it's interesting that McCain can say he's disappointed in all the negative campaigning from Obama's side, and then continue to jump on any opportunity he gets to tell America that Obama is "destroying the fabric of democracy." What a great phrase, right?
Additionally, I was disappointed in McCain's demeanor throughout the debate (the picture to the right which, admittedly, was lifted off of PerezHilton, is worth 1000 words). I thought Obama was respectful, he maintained eye contact with McCain whenever he wasn't speaking, and he even nodded along with some of the points McCain was making. McCain, on the other hand, looked... well, I guess petulant is the word I'm looking for. While I don't agree with all his policies, there have been times that McCain has definitely earned my respect, like when he stopped someone at one of his rallies from making racist remarks about Obama. This time, however, I was disappointed and was left thinking that McCain is, overall, kind of an a-hole.
Last, but not least, I loved that Tom Brokaw announced the winner to be Joe the Plumber, who McCain and Obama used throughout the debate as an example to prove their respective views on taxes. Joe definitely got some serious air-time on the debate last night so I think he should thank both McCain and Obama for about a million dollars worth of free advertising.Finally, according to a CBS News poll of uncommitted voters, 53% say Obama won the final debate, 22% say McCain won, and 25% called it a draw.
I think this is a really good example of the way the media tries to manipulate the coverage of certain topics. Sometimes, however, they overdo it to the point of being completely ridiculous and irrelevant, like Fox News has done lately.
According to this article in Market Watch, more women than men vote in presidential elections, and this trend is expected to continue in this November's election. What's interesting in this election in particular, though, is that women are more likely to vote for a Democrat, but there is a woman running for Republican vice president. While Palin certainly does not appeal to all women, there are many people who see her as not just a candidate, but an opportunity. To have a woman in the White House would be a big step forward for American females... or would it? Many women simply don't want to be represented by Palin.
Despite Palin being on the Republican ticket, women still seem to be supporting Obama/Biden.
Check out the CAWP website for lots of interesting polls and voter information on women. I was especially interested in the female vs. male voter information for the "Battleground States."
The official Troopergate findings are that Sarah Palin did, in fact, abuse her power to try to get Trooper Wooten (Palin's ex-brother-in-law) fired. A bi-partisan committee voted 12-0 that Palin violated state ethics law in this matter.
After the second presidential debate, Larry King had Michelle Obama on his show to discuss the debate, the campaign, and everything else that's going on. I think it's so important for the potential First Ladies of this election to have their voices heard because many wives are their husbands' #1 advisors.
Watch part 1 here:
I think Michelle did a very good job answering King's questions. I think she had the opportunity to try to tear McCain down for his "that one" comment, but she chose (wisely) not to take it. McCain and his supporters are jumping to take offense at everything they can get their hands on (like the recent Newsweek cover of Palin) and to see the Obamas so completely unfazed by McCain's demeaning comment is refreshing.
Watch part 2 here:
I think Michelle is extraordinarily gracious. King showed her a video of Palin saying Obama "pals around with terrorists" and still she doesn't get angry! In fact, she even had some kind words for Palin later on in the interview, saying that she "...provides an excellent example of all the different roles that women can and should play." When asked about her reaction to the nasty politics going on, she said that she and her husband believe in "disagreeing without being disagreeable." I think Michelle may be an even better politician than her husband! It's like she was born to do this stuff, and whether or not she rehearsed any of her answers, she comes off as very genuine in what she is saying.
Watch part 3 here:
Michelle comes off as a truly remarkable woman. I remember some of the animosity between Hillary Clinton and the Obamas, but Michelle had some really beautiful things to say about the Clintons and their support. I think it was also especially smart of her to bring up the fact that she and Hillary Clinton have reached out to one another to talk about everything going on. I think this is a great way to win over some of the Clinton supporters who were hesitant to support Obama after he won the nomination. I also really liked the personal anecdote Michelle gave of her daughter saying it would have been just as important for Hillary Clinton, a woman, to win the nomination as it was for her father, an African American. This, to me, made the Obamas seem like such an open-minded, gracious family.
Watch part 4 here:
First of all, I think it was brilliant of Michelle to bring up the support she has for the troops coming home and military families. McCain has talked so much about the importance of America's veterans, and I think this is a good way to show those same voters that they will be looked after under an Obama presidency as well.
Overall, I think Michelle Obama gives an excellent interview and I think America recognizes her as "one of us" despite the claims that she's an elitist with her Ivy League background (which she just said in this interview was paid for with scholarships and loans). Also, I'd really like to see someone say, with a straight face, that Cindy McCain is not an elitist.
During that last segment, King invited Cindy McCain to come on his show and I really hope she does. I can't think of the last time I saw her speak anywhere, and I'd really like to know a little more about who she is.
On a final note, I'm curious who the president's real #2 is. Is it his vice president or his wife?
Fox News is outraged by Newsweek's covershot of Palin, which has not been retouched. Apparently, some people think it was cruel and an attack on her for being a "normal" person with flaws. Fox compares it to one of Obama's covershots that is particularly flattering.
Watch the video here:
I really liked the point that Julia made that we shouldn't expect magazines to give political candidates the same kind of retouching we expect to see on supermodels. Palin is not in a beauty pageant here (although many male Republicans might disagree).
Anyway, this got me interested about what kind of photos Newsweek has used of Obama in the past. What I came across was this image: You can view a gigantic version of Palin's Newsweek cover HERE for comparison.
The image I posted above of Obama on the cover of Newsweek (facial imperfections and all) actually never made it to the newsstands. According to Gawker, this cover was pulled last-minute at the suggestion of the editor's wife who thought this brighter cover would be better: I guess there are two different ways of looking at this. 1) Newsweekalmostused an equally "honest" photo of Obama, so Republicans really shouldn't be complaining about Palin's photo that is certainly no less Photoshopped than Obama's... or 2) Newsweek pulled the unflattering photo of Obama last-minute and didn't do the same for Palin, which is unfair and... sexist? I assume that's where the McCain campaign will be going with this next.
I happen to think that Obama's original cover being changed last-minute was probably based entirely on the whim of one single person at the magazine (in this case, the editor's wife) and therefore I don't think it counts as the entire magazine deciding on a nicer picture of Obama than of Palin. I think this is really pushing it - something McCain and his people have been quite good at lately.
If we think back to when Hillary Clinton was still in the race, how many awful pictures were there of her floating around?? Was Fox News complaining then?
To me, this just seems like another last ditch attempt by McCain supporters to gain favor because something as simple as an unflattering photo of Palin is such a terrible, damaging attack on the Republican candidates.
I finally had the time to watch the second presidential debate from this past Tuesday and, to me, it was just a lot more of the same. There weren't a whole lot of new ideas presented by either candidate (except for McCain's claim that the government could buy up mortgages, which I was tempted to believe he said by accident). In fact, as I was watching, I kept having to ask myself, Did I watch this already? because I've heard almost the exact same answers and phrases before. At least they're finally being consistent, right?
In case you missed the debate, you can watch it here on CSPAN:
According to the polls, Obama is the winner, however many Americans felt that it was a draw. Having watched it myself, I would have to agree. I think Obama did a better job and gave answers I think more Americans will be happy with, but McCain didn't do a terrible job either.
One thing that bothered me about this debate, though, was how much back-and-forth "attacking" was going 0n between the candidates. It was like watching kids fight at the playground, each trying to get the last word. Who started it? Definitely McCain. Who was more annoying about getting the last word? Obama.
McCain's attempts to tear down Obama seemed more like desperate flailing to me than anything else. I think Obama found them quite amusing, himself. Throughout the debate, anytime McCain was talking, Obama looked right at him, smiling. He really kept his cool throughout, something McCain isn't so good at. I don't blame Obama for wanting the opportunity to respond to McCain's accusations rather than answering the next question, but it did start to wear on me after a while that neither of them could just move on.
I also felt like McCain went out of his way to be irritatingly "chummy" with Tom Brokaw, telling him "Just wave your arms at me, Tom, when you want me to stop, and I'll look at you,"and"I'll actually answer the question." He should know that everyone hates the teacher's pet.
Regarding the actual issues being debated, I think both candidates did a fairly good job, however I think Obama was better prepared than McCain was, which is interesting considering the whole "experience" issue, McCain's time in Washington being vastly greater than Obama's. When Obama answered the questions, I think he kept it pretty clean and didn't say anything too negative until he had to defend himself, while McCain seemed, well, desperate.
Additionally, I felt like Obama was anticipating McCain's answers and when it was he who had to respond first, I got the sense that he knew what McCain was going to say and was almost pre-refuting it. For example, when the question of taxes came up, Obama made a big point that even though some taxes would go up, there would be a "net tax cut." Of course he had to know that McCain would try to milk the "raising taxes" thing as hard as he could, but what surprised me was that McCain completely ignored what Obama said about the net tax cut.
Was he daydreaming? Having a "senior moment," perhaps? It was only about two minutes after Obama explained the tax issue that McCain was, again, claiming that Obama would raise taxes. In fact, he worked this into almost all of what he had to say on the economy! Every time he did it, I was watching Obama's face, ready for him to react, but he didn't. He just smiled. It was almost creepy, actually, how well he kept his cool. I imagine he was depending on the viewers to see for themselves that McCain was beating a dead horse, so to speak, and decided to sit back and watch him dig himself a deeper hole.
Overall, I think Obama did a good job of exposing the shallowness of McCain's arguments and setting America straight on his policies. I think many of the uncommitted voters saw it this way, as well, based on the poll results.
After the CBS News broadcasting of the debate, Katie Couric asked her small audience of uncommitted voters in the studio to weigh in on the debate. It seems to me that everything involving the politics nowadays goes through Couric. Anyway, many of her uncommitted voters felt that McCain was disrespectful in his "that one" statement.
Watch here if you missed "that one":
While only one person admitted that he had been officially turned to the Obama side, I got the impression that many others were at least leaning in that direction. The conversations seemed to be against McCain and for Obama, even coming from registered Republicans who are still officially "uncommitted."
The overall consensus of the voters at the CBS News studio seemed to be that McCain was very much "on the attack" but Obama "wasn't rattled" by it.
Couric then asked the opinion of Jeff Greenfield, a CBS senior political correspondent, who said that McCain had "wandering eyes" while Obama maintained constant eye-contact, and that McCain was very "childish" throughout the debate. These are two of the things I noted while watching, as well.
Couric then asked Dee Dee Myers, a former White House Press Secretary, what her opinion of the debate was. She said that Obama kept trying to keep McCain from "scoring," which I think is a good defensive strategy since Obama is currently leading the national polls.
Next on Couric's list was Dan Bartlett, a former Counselor to the President (for George W. Bush). Bartlett said that the best point McCain made was that we don't need a president who needs on-the-job training. The uncommitted voters polled nation-wide agreed that Obama is not as ready for the job as McCain, however this does not seem to be affecting their votes.
All in all, I think this debate helped Obama and McCain, but overall Obama is absolutely the winner, in my opinion. I was expecting McCain to really shine in this town-hall style debate, but that was not the case.
Lastly, and on a completely superficial note, McCain jerkily walked around the stage with his wavering voice and shifty eyes, while Obama remained calm, cool, and collected.
I think this match goes to Obama, who left the playground the victor.
I admit this really has nothing to do with anything, but while I watch the Presidential Debate on TiVo (I wasn't home last night) I thought this would give me something to post:
So, I wish I had posted about this when the details of the debate were still fresh in my mind, but I was away briefly and unable to. In fact, I was in the car driving when the debate was on, so I had to listen to it on the radio. I much prefer watching things on TV, I think because I like to see what's happening, not just listen to what's being said. Also, you may have noticed that lately, I've had an obsession with important things like Katie Couric's facial expressions.
Anyway, listening to the debate gave me a completely different perspective on the whole thing. I didn't get distracted because I was stuck in an insane amount of traffic with nothing else to think about, and I think I actually heard what the candidates were saying even better than I did when watching the presidential debate on TV last week.
First of all, I think Sarah Palin did an adequate job, which was an enormous surprise. I'm not sure if she actually did a good job debating, though, or if I was just expecting her to crash and burn, which she did not. I think America's expectations for her were so very low that she really could have gotten up there, recited the Pledge of Allegiance, and people would have applauded her efforts.
Joe Biden, on the other hand, did a fantastic job. Biden really sold himself to me. In fact, I was left wondering why we didn't nominate him to run for president. He proved that he not only knows the facts, but understands them (a quality Palin severely lacks). He also just sounded more qualified to me. He used a collected, even tone throughout and seemed to really know what he was talking about.
Palin spit out a lot of facts and made a whole lot more sense than ever before, but as I listened to her answers, I got the distinct impression that she was making a mental check-list of things to say and trying to work them into the questions. This reminds me of many many college exams I took, where I would decide there wasn't enough time to actually learn the information, but if I memorized a few BIG facts, I could somehow make them work for any essay question. Was anyone out there keeping track of how many times Palin explained why she wouldn't be answering the question and then went on to say whatever she felt like? This actually really bothered me. While Biden did some of the same, I got the feeling that he was explaining information he understood, even if he got a little off-topic, while Palin was simply regurgitating, regardless of whether or not it was related.
Another thing that really started to bother me about Palin's debating was that she threw in far too many "dog gone it"s and "darn right"s. Additionally, she seemed to go way out of her way to point out that she speaks for the hockey moms and soccer moms of the country. She did it so much, that I found myself actually laughing out loud at how predictable she is.
Video of some highlights:
Lastly, did anyone else hear how many times she paused just that little bit too long? I could almost hear her panic a little on a few questions. She'd pause, then throw out one of her key points, like how she and McCain are a couple of Mavericks, or something like that, just to fill the time while she thought up an answer. Maybe I'm being a little hard on her, I just can't help it.
To be fair, I thought it was a good move on her part to emphasize that she, too, is from the middle class and knows about the financial struggles of taking care of a family. Biden shot right back, though, as a widower who lost a daughter and had sons who were severely injured. He got a little choked up about it, in fact, which made me completely forget whatever Palin had just said about her enormous family and paying for them.
Biden talking about his family:
I think that overall, it was fairly obvious that Biden was the winner of the debate. Palin made a few good points, but Biden was ready for them and Palin most certainly was not ready for some of the things he threw back at her. If nothing else, the VP debate further proved that Palin can't think on her feet and, considering that she wants more power than previous VPs, that's completely unacceptable.
I will say, though, that Palin did not say anything Tina Fey-worthy (although I'm sure they'll find something to poke fun at) and I think that's a huge accomplishment for her.
According to John McCain, what happens in a pizza place just doesn't count. This past Saturday, Sarah Palin was at a Philadelphia cheesesteak restaurant (apparently the same thing as a pizza place in McCain's book) when a voter asked her about cross-border attacks from Afghanistan to Pakistan. Palin responded that she approves of these attacks, as long as they keep the terrorists from coming any farther.
Watch the clip here:
This, however, entirely goes against McCain's views (while agreeing completely with Barack Obama). Katie Couric points that out in this interview with McCain and Palin:
I have to say, I have so much more respect for Couric now. I thought Charlie Gibson was going to get all the credit for taking Palin down a notch with the Bush Doctrine fiasco and Palin's Russian neighbors, but I think it has been Couric who has driven the point home. I think Couric has exposed Palin for her inexperience, while being completely fair in her conduct and interviewing.
I think McCain's comment, "This is not the first time that I’ve seen a governor being questioned by some quote, ‘expert,’" while looking right at Couric was completely out of line. As I said, I think Couric conducted a fair interview, and perhaps if Palin was an "expert" at anything political, we could all take a sigh of relief since she could one day be our commander-in-chief.
Overall, I'm glad to see that Couric isn't letting anyone get away with anything. I think the candidates now know that you better know your stuff before you go on her show.
I have to say, I've watched more Katie Couric during the campaign season than I think I ever have before in my life. I think she happens to be an excellent interviewer, and I particularly like the faces she accidentally makes at Sarah Palin almost every single time they've spoken (just watch, you'll see what I mean).
Abortion is always a big political issue, especially for women, so I was excited to see Couric interviewing both Sarah Palin and Joe Biden about Roe v. Wade:
I have to wonder if Palin really thinks she's fooling anyone. She makes it so painfully obvious that she knows nothing about what's going on. Her answers rarely make sense and she never actually says anything.
Watching Palin is a lot like watching Miss Teen South Carolina talk about education in America (I couldn't resist, I had to post the video):
But on a more serious note....
I know that Palin is being prepped constantly so that she'll look more informed, so how does she continue to make these mistakes? There's a part of me that keeps wanting to give her the benefit of the doubt that she's just not up to that lesson yet in her vice presidential prep course, but isn't it completely unacceptable not to be able to name any Supreme Court cases? Couric asked her to name any example other than Roe v. Wade, and Palin still comes up with... Roe v. Wade!
I definitely don't feel comfortable watching the woman who could be vice president (or worse yet, president!) and thinking to myself, why don't I run? Apparently anyone can be vice president.
In closing: Sarah Palin, you aren't fooling anyone.
I received an e-mail "Fwd" today about the Alaska Women Reject Palin rally in Anchorage, Alaska, claiming that it was the largest rally ever in the state of Alaska and that it vastly outnumbered the Welcome Home rally for Sarah Palin (which received all the mainstream media attention). I usually don't believe anything I read in forwarded e-mails, but this was worth checking out.
I found the story in The Huffington Post, verifying everything I had just read. Basically, a bunch of women met over coffee and decided to start a rally against Palin. They posted fliers and notified some of the local media about their plans and had a turnout of close to 1,500 (making this the largest rally ever in Alaska).
So I guess the question I'm trying to ask here is... why did I read this in a forwarded e-mail? Why would Palin's Welcome Home rally receive all the attention while this one's biggest media coverage was an Alaskan blogger?
Well, according to an ad, which appeared on the Wall Street Journal website earlier today before the debate even occurred, it was McCain.
According to a CBS early poll of 500 uncommitted voters, however, it was Obama. This was determined after the debate, by the way, not before.
Personally, I think that neither of them "wow-ed" me, but neither completely embarrassed himself either. McCain absolutely demonstrated his experience with the military and swore to take care of America's veterans. Obama, on the other hand, reminded us that he saw this financial crisis coming and tried to stop it, while McCain and the Republican party allowed it to happen. Those were two things that really stuck out to me, at least.
McCain did, however, show us that he's willing to come down hard on extraneous government spending while Obama may be asking for large sums of government cash to fund his various projects. Obama defended his position, though, not only by stating the importance of government spending on educatoin and health care, but also by refuting many of the claims McCain was making about his (Obama's) proposed policies.
On a completely superficial note, I was watching on NBC, and maybe it was different on other channels, but the fact that the camera frame had to be adjusted for Obama, who stands 6'1.5" tall, versus McCain who is only 5'9" made McCain look older and Obama look more presidential.
Does this really matter? Well, yes. According to this article as well as the Presidential Height Index, the taller presidential candidate usually wins the popular vote. Of course this isn't always true, but I think in this election in particular, it's a little more important. McCain isn't a young, healthy guy. In fact, he's 72 years old (compared to Obama who is only 47), and this obvious height difference only adds to the "frail, old man" image McCain does not want.
But getting back to the point of this post...
Who is the real winner? I guess we'll have to wait and see.
According to Katie Couric from CBS News, women are 1) more likely to vote than men and 2) more influential when it comes to decision-making within their homes. Couric asks if the woman's influence will make it to the voting booth:
So we've all heard that Sarah Palin lives right next door to Russia, therefore giving her all the foreign policy experience she could possibly need. There was no way Katie Couric could not bring this up during her recent interview with Palin.
I think my favorite part was when Couric tried so hard not to smirk about the whole Russia thing:
In case you missed the facial expressions, here they are for you:
Palin defended herself by re-iterating the importance of Alaska's proximity to Russia, but it left me thinking... isn't Siberia kind of the Alaska of Russia? (Sorry Alaskans, we still love you).
First, I pulled up a map of Alaska and Russia on Google Maps:
But then I zoomed out, and put a little marker on Moscow (represented by the letter "A"), because I think if Palin is going to talk about foreign policy experience with Russia, she must be referring to the Russian government, right?
Not so close, really. Actually, the distance from Palin's office in Juneau, Alaska to Moscow, Russia is approximately 4,470 miles (data from Google Earth). So this got me wondering, what else is Palin 4,470 miles away from (and therefore completely knowledgeable of)?
I was just reading Mike's blog, where he posted this video:
How can anyone not find this completely disturbing? Also, why has it taken so long for anyone to pick up on this issue? I rarely hear any mention of Sarah Palin's wolf-killing policies in the mainstream media. Mama for Obama commented on Mike's entry about how Michael Vick went to jail for dog-killing, but we're considering electing this woman for VP.
Speaking of Michael Vick, who didn't know about that? I don't follow sports or watch ESPN, but I read about Michael Vick and his dog-fighting ring nearly every day for weeks because it was that big of a story and hit nearly every media outlet. Why was it decided that Michael Vick's story of an underground dog-fighting ring was so much bigger than a government policy to kill wildlife in Alaska under the leadership of our potential future VP?
With the Internet becoming more and more important in campaigning, a good question to ask is, who's on top web-wise? According to hitwise.com, Obama's website consistently gets more hits than McCain's:
However, Sarah Palin seems to be taking over the spotlight as people are wondering where the Democratic VP Joe Biden is. In fact, according to Fox News:
"Online searches indicate that Republican vice presidential hopeful Sarah Palin overwhelming has captured the attention of Web users, placing her No. 1 on the list of mostly widely used political search terms.
Joe Biden? He didn’t break the top 10."
So, where is Joe Biden? Well, according to this website, Biden is "everywhere that matters," making personal appearances in a number of important states. While these stories don't make the cut for national news, they are circulating through more local newspapers. Is Biden flying under the radar and gaining more localized public attention that we don't even know about?
I guess we'll have to wait and see if all this "local press" really does make a difference.
Today, Sarah Palin met with world leaders to increase her "experience" in foreign affairs. Palin and her people agreed to allow photographers and videographers to collect a few images of the meetings, but refused entry to any reporters.
CNN, in protest, pulled its TV crew from the first meeting Palin had with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Palin wanted the high visibility that the CNN TV crew could provide, however, and eventually agreed to allow a CNN producer in, as well.
This raises the question of who's really in charge? The candidates can agree to take questions or not, they can choose whom they are willing to be interviewed by, they can make stipulations about what they will and will not discuss, but in the end it seems to be the media holding the real power. Candidates have to get their faces out there somehow, so the last thing they should want to do is disengage with the media.
I know this is old news, but I thought this recent article in the Chicago Sun-Times about Senator McCain's first wife, Carol, was really interesting - "Let the record show McCain's cheating past".
Not a lot of people seem to know that while McCain was in a Vietnam prison camp, he had a wife, Carol, at home taking care of his three children. During this time, Carol McCain got into a terrible car accident that left her permanently crippled. When her husband returned, he was shocked to see the change in his former-swimsuit model wife and, even though Carol claims her accident was not the cause of this, he soon left her for a younger woman - Cindy McCain.
The article linked above points out how important female voters are in this election, and how something like this could be particularly damaging, should it come to the media forefront. Referring to female voters - "Many of these women have walked in Carol's shoes. / They have loved men when their lives were low only to be cast aside when their spouses' stars began to rise."
Should this become a bigger issue, do I think this will affect the opinions of American female voters? Absolutely. It's hard not to be swayed by a candidate's personal character, and this is an issue that hits very close to home for a lot of American women. If John McCain is cast as the philandering husband and Cindy McCain as the homewrecking other woman, while Barack Obama and his wife Michelle are portrayed as the all-American husband and wife team, I think this will have a major impact on female voters.
Just take a look at these magazine covers:
Cindy McCain - "Behind That Smile" versus Michelle Obama - "She shops at Target, loved Sex and the City and never misses the girls' recitals. The untold romance between a down-to-earth mom and the man who calls her 'my rock'"
As an American woman myself, Michelle Obama has that she's just like me element to her, while Cindy McCain comes off as cold and sneaky. I know this is based on superficial images and, well, magazine covers... but imagery works! How many women browsing through the magazine shelves at their local supermarket or book store are going to see these images, perhaps next to one another, and think the same thing (probably without even reading the articles inside).
Senator Obama has been running an ad recently that has been "Scaring Seniors," according to Newsweek. His ad is about social security, and Senator McCain's support of privatization of the system. According to Newsweek, the ad is flawed and misleading. Watch below:
In the linked article above, Lori Robertson and Brooks Jackson from www.Factcheck.org go step-by-step through the Obama ad pointing out the many misleading details. I'm not going to repeat them all here, but just to sum up - Senator Obama's ad strongly implies that senior citizens should be concerned that their social security checks that many of them rely on are going to be cut in half should Senator McCain become president.
From "Scaring Seniors" The ad refers to a Bush proposal from 2005 to hold down the growth of benefits for future retirees. Compared to the buying power of benefits paid to today's retirees, that would not have been a "cut" for anybody. It would have been a "cut" of half only in relation to benefits now promised to retirees who have yet to be born. And for average workers, that "cut" in 2075 was projected by one of Obama's own economic advisers to be 28 percent, not "half."
The article goes on to quote Senator McCain in 2007 saying, "...It's got to be bipartisan..." when referring to the Social Security reforms necessary to keep the system from going broke. Overall, it becomes very clear that Obama is being just as misleading in his advertising as McCain was with his recent Katie Couric WebAd.
"Can you really afford more of the same?" That's the closing line of the Obama-Biden Social Security ad. In its own way, this is more of the same - misleading ads that are then exposed in the media.
I just watched this video of someone asking Governor Palin about her "...perceived lack of foreign policy experience," and even after re-watching twice, I'm still pretty sure she didn't answer the question, or even come close to it:
Isn't this the second time someone from the McCain camp has evaded this very question? Brent posted about the Campbell Brown - Tucker Bounds fiasco on his blog if you'd like to see the video I'm referring to.
Sometimes, I do think the media goes too far, asking questions to intentionally trip someone up or mislead viewers/readers, but in both these cases, Governor Palin and Tucker Bounds were asked the same, fair and simple question and any damage done was entirely self-inflicted. Do they really think Americans are going to be fooled by this? Tucker Bounds did nothing but turn the question into an excuse to re-iterate Senator Obama's inexperience, while Governor Palin answered with an excited We're ready so, Go Team!
I think everyone is excited to see the Couric - Palin interview which is set to air on September 29th. One of the things that stands out most about Sarah Palin is that she is a woman running for Vice President, and who better to interview her than another powerful female figure?
I think this is a fantastic opportunity for Palin to redeem herself after the Charlie Gibson interview that, in my opinion, failed to impress. I'm hoping we won't have to keep hearing "I'm ready" and instead we'll here more "Here's why I'm ready."
YouTube, a major video-sharing website, has just taken down a McCain WebAd that featured Katie Couric from CBS News talking about sexism in the election. She is quoted, "One of the great lessons of that campaign is the continued and accepted role of sexism in American life." The ad implies that Couric was speaking about Sarah Palin when, in fact, she said this long before Palin became McCain's VP choice. Couric was actually speaking about Hillary Clinton, not Palin.
Couric talking about sexism in reference to Hilary Clinton:
CBS responded to the situation, saying "CBS News does not endorse any candidate in the Presidential race. Any use of CBS personnel in political advertising that suggests the contrary is misleading."
While I don't think this particular ad played a major role in anything, I do think this is an ethical issue. Whoever it was from Team McCain that came up with the concept for this ad must have been aware that Couric's statement had nothing to do with Palin, but chose to use it anyway.
Ultimately, I think this choice will hurt the McCain campaign more than it could ever have helped it, because it is so blatantly and purposely misleading. I think this will only add to the mistrust that many Americans feel towards politics in general, and now more specifically McCain's campaign. By manipulating this latest video to misdirect people, I think they've taken away a lot of their own credibility for any future statement, especially anything involving a public figure.
