Obama - "Whatever I Like"

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:

No Communion for Unrepentent Obama Voters

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."

To read the article and the letter, click HERE.

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?

Post-Election Interviews

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.

Barack Obama - World Leader

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.

"He'll sail past 300"

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.

Confusion in New Mexico

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.

This is Interesting

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.

Click HERE to listen.

Political Satire

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?

Debate #3

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.

This is Scary

It makes me sad that so many people in our country are this stupid:

Michelle Obama on Larry King

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?

Ridiculously Unfair?

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) Newsweek almost used 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.

Is that all they've got?

Putting the "Fun" in Fundamental Differences

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.

Palin Speaks Again

I always get a little nervous when Palin speaks. Here's a video of her saying that Obama "pals around with terrorists."

And the Winner Is...

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.

Who Wears the Pantsuit?

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:


Watch CBS Videos Online

And if you're looking for that clip of Obama singing "I'm Every Woman," the audio is here:



So, who really does have the female vote?

Who Owns the Internet? And Also, Where's Joe?

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.

Obama Just As Misleading As McCain

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.

Stump the Candidate

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!

The media doesn't always have to spin something to make a point, sometimes the candidates do it for them.