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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.