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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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)?
Well, according to Google Earth, the list would include both Panama and London, so perhaps Palin should add those to her foreign policy résumé, as well.
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.
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.
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.
