Even if Bobby Jindal's campaign tries to steer away from this as much as possible, it is simply inevitable that their candidate will be compared to President Barack Obama. How this comparison will be handled, however, is still to be determined. One thing that will not work for the Republican campaign for Jindal's 2012 presidency is if he is portrayed as "Obama Jr." or "trying to fill Barack's shoes" (the latter of which will be difficult considering Obama wears a size 12). The media and voters will need to get a sense of Bobby's identity, and the constant comparison between these two historic political figures may present a struggle for Jindal to portray the "real" Bobby--or will it be Piyush? One thing the media will certainly pick up on is the double name trend in Jindal's family, and this can either work for him or against him. Personally, to the majority of American voters, I think Jindal stands a better chance if he presents himself as Piyush and Supriya, with their three children Selia, Shaan and Slade. However, the Grand Old Party will most likely favor Bobby and Sue, with their kids Elizabeth, Robert and Ryan (the children's second names).
Whatever he decides to call himself, his appearance, demeanor and ideals will be on trial against Barack's, and not simply because they are both minorities, but also because they are both family men with young children, politically inexperienced (according to some) and both represent an kind of "change" for America (even if Jindal doesn't run on that motto, it will be prevalent).
As a sort of first-look comparison of the two politicians, I found each of their appearances on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno (it's important to compare them in the same atmosphere). Below are Bobby's and Barack's clips, respectively.
Notice the different in their comfort levels? Leno introduces Barack as a rock star, and in many ways, he portrays that on the scree. From his swagger walking on stage to his unbuttoned jacket and leaned back posture to his jokes about family, he seems 20 times more confident and comfortable than Bobby. While these videos were taken sometime in 2007, I think Jindal still has some sorting out to do when it comes to his on-stage presence. Bobby needs to decide who he's going to be and own it!
Hey guys! This is my most important post of the semester... well almost...I thought the Wikipedia one was pretty good. :)
Anyway, I think it was fairly unanimous that we would have a bit of a party next Monday, so here is the place to post your contribution to our soiree.
Here is what I'll be bringing--Rocky Road Brownies!
Lauren will bring -- Homemade Oreos!
Richard and Harry will bring -- Indian Food!
Kevin will bring -- Drinks!
Mary will bring -- Spinach Dip!
Sarai will bring --Pumpkin Bread/Gingerbread
Please post a comment with what you'd like to bring and I'll either update this post periodically or you can just click on the comments below to see what we've got.
And if anyone feels like celebrating Riggio-style, feel free to bring some champagne/wine to toast the end of a fine class. :)
Here is a synopsis of the case, disturbing really: "Drew, 49, of Dardenne Prairie, Mo., posed as a teenage boy, 'Josh Evans,' using a MySpace account to send romantic, then disturbing, messages to one of her daughter's classmates, 13-year-old Megan Meier. Meier thought she was messaging with a new, good-looking boy in town. As the New Yorker magazine said in a January article about the case: 'Megan and her peers carried on an online social life that was more mercurial, and perhaps more crucial to their sense of status and acceptance, than the one they inhabited in the flesh.' Meier, who suffered from depression, killed herself in October 2006 soon after reading a message from Drew's account that said: 'The world would be a better place without you.'"
So what does this mean for sites like WikiLeaks, the Huffington Post and other non-traditional news sites that are not always 100% accurate? What does it mean for bloggers who post false information? It means, you could potentially, if this law is expanded even more, be held criminally responsible for your words. Perhaps this will have an effect on future elections? (There, I tied it in.. ) :)
A recent MSNBC article evaluated the possibility of several Republican officials running for the presidential ticket in 2012. The results of combined Gallup surveys of nearly 800 Republicans and GOP-leaning independents conducted between 11/5 and 11/16 were:
Candidate Favorability to run in 2012 Sarah Palin 67% Mitt Romney 62% Mike Huckabee 61% David Petraeus 49% Rudy Giuliani 48% Bobby Jindal 34% Jeb Bush 31% Charlie Crist 23% Lindsay Graham 21%
As you can see, Bobby doesn't appear to be as far up the list as the media is currently broadcasting. But the article offers an explanation for this is as well.
First, many who are not familiar with a name just automatically choose the "would not like to see run" option, and that is the most likely explanation.
Second, at 37, almost a decade younger than even the youthful President-elect Barack Obama, there could be some "he's too young" reasoning involved here.
Third, and probably insignificant in number, are Louisianans who think he is badly needed in the state, hoping that he can reverse the, say, six or seven decades of lousy public policy choices that have put the state in the terrible shape it's in. But that probably doesn't amount to much in a national poll and might be offset by those proud that Louisiana could offer up a contender who, uncharacteristically for the state's governors, is both smart and honest.
The final explanation, held till last for a reason, is race. The son of two immigrants from India, he would look different from any previous GOP nominee or president, just as Obama was unique among serious Democratic contenders and past occupants of the White House. During Jindal's first (and unsuccessful) run for governor, he performed no worse in urban, heavily Democratic areas than any other Republican. In the suburbs, traditionally Republican-leaning if not strongholds, Jindal did very well. It was in the small towns and rural parts of the state in 2003 that Jindal underperformed what a Republican should be expected to win, and that was undoubtedly racially driven. Those voters were likely to be those with the least familiarity with Indian- Americans and least open to change. By the time Jindal ran again, successfully in 2007, he won them over.
These appear to be a brief summary of what Jindal might face if he, in fact, decides to run for high office in 2012. What are the solutions? First, create a strong national profile (or, hire Obama's campaign team), utilize Internet networking sites, and dominate the YouTube culture with music videos, video diaries, speeches, and generally motivating footage to capture the attention of young viewers. Second, make some really good political decisions and policies, right about now, to thwart the accusations of your "lack of experience" later. By creating serious and tangible "change" in Louisiana, you can resolve both the second and third issues. As for the race issue, I'm hoping, in four years, after progress and a successful Obama first term, it will be as close to a non-issue as possible.
What are some things already working for Bobby Jindal?
The catch for Jindal in 2012 is that the contraction in the size and shape of the Republican Party has made those least open to his candidacy more influential than before. Younger, upscale, college and graduate-schooled white suburban voters abandoned the GOP en masse, and those are precisely the ones that might be most open or excited by a Jindal candidacy. Thus the question, Could Jindal draw them back?
To give us a better perspective of the scope of social networking in our Internet-fueled society, here is a list I stole from Wikipedia of various networking sites. I reorganized the list by registered users (I apologize if it's a little difficult to read).
See many you are a member of.... I, sadly, only belong to 10.. looks like I have some catching up to do!
So I have been MIA for a little while, but no need to fret, I'm back in action!
A lot has happened since my last post, but for now I will just address the topic of this week's discussion--social networking and its place in political media.
To begin, take a look at Barack Obama's Twitter page. Not very insightful, or recently updated, but available nonetheless. And does John McCain twitter, you may ask? Of course not, but one of his aides does. I have to admit, his is a little more interesting....
I thought it was rather interesting that the story of Wednesday's audio message from Al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahri is being posted, broadcasted and published most heavily by conservative, right-wing media sources. It seems to be all over their sites. And I wonder if this is a way to criticize the incoming administration based on terrorists' disapproval of American strategies and actions. Would the message from Al-Qaida be any different if McCain were elected? I think not, yet some conservatives seem to think so...
In my search for right wing news that pertains to this week's discussion, I came across a wonderfully applicable website--RightWingNews.com!
The top story on this site is a post from a Conservative blogger who calls himself "The Other McCain," aka Robert Stacy McCain. The particular post highlighted is a response to Courtney's favorite, Andrew Sullivan, and his remark that gay marriage can be interpreted as the "original intent" of the founding fathers by the phrase "civil equality." His post is well worth reading, as it is unbelievably right wing and, even though he predicted I'd say it, extremely homophobic. He goes so far as to support Rod Dreher's comment that the protesters in California are the real bigots in this case, with their signs, chants and recklessness!
A FOXnews story run yesterday discussed the lofty promises made by the Barack Obama campaign before the Presidential election. Fox's Wendell Goler does not seem to think Obama has any chance of upholding his promises and establishing all the policies he once advocated. Rather, there is a thought that our new President has set the bar a little too high for himself, and the media, in their comparisons of Obama to Lincoln, MLK, and FDR, have raised it completely out of reach. So according to Goler, Obama's first major decision will be "who to disappoint first."
She quotes historian Douglas Brinkley who speculated about Obama, "He's going to say, 'Look, I was going to build a levee system in New Orleans that would've cost $60 billion to make the city safe for category 5 storms like I promised, but that was before the meltdown of October, and so now I've got to fix the plumbing of capitalism."
There is a suggestion in her article that Obama continued to promise policies and change that were far beyond the means of our government in these restrictive times knowing that the new President could use the economy as a scapegoat when his administration falls short. While it's an awfully pessimistic way of thinking, I have a feeling FOX is not the only one...
Not sure if anyone else saw this, but I thought it was kind of cool, considering we're always talking about individuals' codes and what it means about their actual personalities.
3. Same-Sex Marriage Rallies - The 2008 Presidential race was between a fairly liberal Republican, as suggested by his own party, and a moderately conservative Democrat. As a result, it will be very interesting to see the kinds of legislation proposed by our new President after he takes office in January. Barack Obama has admitted openly that he persoanlly opposes gay marriage but does not support a constitutional ban of it. I have a feeling that the recent ban in California will put pressure on the new administration to take a definitive stance on the matter.
4. Obama's Blackberry Affair - No, Obama did not have an affair with someone via his blackberry. Sorry. What I'm referring to is his very famous relationship with his blackberry. Obama has been sited with his handheld device everywhere, it never leaves his side, and he has been known to personally answer all emails with some promptness. However, lately he is being told he must give up his right to personal email and surrender his PDA. For a man whose campaign was so heavily based on the power of the Internet, relinquishing his right to use something as important as email will be quite the undertaking. It was reported, however, that he may be the first President to request a laptop on his desk in the oval office. Really? The first? Wow...
Though the election has been over for more than a week now, and the majority of Americans are satisfied with the result, Obamania has not yet died down. Millions of people all over the country are still swooning over our President-elect, campaigning for him with permanent signs on their lawns and creating plans to weasel their way into the celebration on Inauguration Day.
Now, it is not unheard of for people who acquire free tickets to the inaugural festivities to sell them for profit if they are unable to go, but the immediacy and availability of these ticket sales for the start of the Obama administration is unprecedented. It is only one week after the election and already dozens of tickets have appeared on EBay priced anywhere from $1,000 to $7,500! Can you imagine what the cost will be in January?
According to the LA Times, most of these ticket sellers and scalpers are scam artists who claim they will get the tickets at a later date but demand payment immediately. For some people, it may be difficult to tell the difference as some sites like GreatSeats.com seem to be perfectly legitimate in their offer, but unlikely nonetheless.
The popularity of this event is incredible, as a Google search will result in airlines offering discounts to fly to DC in late January, numerous T-Shirt and paraphernelia sites for Obama gear, even a Barack Obama Gold Coin offer, and not to mention the numerous Obama action figures.
Here is another fun, slightly over-the-top piece of marketing: One-of-a-kind Cabbage Patch dolls in the likeness of the candidates auctioned on EBay for charity.
Although, I have to be fair and can't claim that this is the result of Obama's celebrity status. Palin, in fact, sold for more than the President-elect (they were auctioned before election night).
I believe the order was Palin ($19,000), Obama ($8,400), McCain ($6,000) and Biden ($3,550.01). Poor Biden.
I think we all probably saw this story covered at some point in the last two weeks, and at the time I didn't think much of it. But considering our discussion of race this week, my thoughts came back to this West Hollywood Halloween display. The residents, Chad Michael Morrisette and his partner, who are fashion designers and use mannequins every year in their Halloween decorations, claimed that the display was "twisted"--the way Halloween decor should be. But most residents, even liberals, thought it went a little too far, and many people raised the question of hate crimes. If it had been Barack Obama's mannequin, they argued, it would be a greater outrage and the city would demand it taken down. But as an effigy of Palin, the act was regarded as free speech and Morrisette was allowed to keep it up through Halloween weekend (as well as get his 15 minutes of fame).
In an election in which race is such a forefront issue, how does this kind of racism factor in? Is it even racism? How would this have been construed if Obama were not the democratic nominee, if the race were among three white men and one white woman? Just how conditional IS the discussion of race in politics?
Remember that ad we watched in class by the woman with the weird neck? Well it turns out that over 1,500 people actually answered the call to "video their vote" and sent it in to PBS. This page on YouTube displays a map with all of the videos from across the country. You can sort by categories such as "voter intimidation," "registration problems," or "first-time voters." Take a look. Some are interesting, while some are just silly.
Check out this article on the Courant's website that highlights voters age 18-29, especially in Connecticut, whose numbers and candidate choice made a significant difference in this election. Every four years the media speculates that young voters could determine the presidency if they only showed up on election day, and finally, we actually followed through! It took a historic and monumental campaign to get us there, but we should all be proud of our generation for finally fighting back against the stereotypes of indifference and inaction!
As it always happens during election nights, different news stations report election coverage in different ways. CNN, for example, is currently displaying only definite wins in their electoral count...
...while MSNBC is presenting projected results from states whose polls have closed but are still processing the ballots (they do not, however, mention that the numbers are not confirmed).
How does this effect election coverage and viewers who are most likely watching only one channel all night long? Is MSNBC setting themselves up to look "silly" if those projected wins don't come through?
Just as we talked about in class last night, the candidates have issued "reflection" montages about the campaign that have very different tones. These (both around 4 or 5 minutes) have replaced the shorter ads featured on their respective YouTube pages I posted earlier.
Here is McCain's very upbeat and energized review of the campaign road, titled "The Mac is Back."
Here is Obama's much more serious speech concluding the campaigning, titled "We Have a Lot of Work to Do."
While in line this morning at a school in Simsbury (which is very strange to begin with), all I saw were happy faces. People greeting each other and saying "good morning" and "thanks for coming out." There was no Jerry-Springer-worthy action at the polls to report on, except for one mild incident of a fresh-out-of-high-school young man who seemed quite the eager beaver to vote this morning. He strolled up with a bright smile on his face, proudly donning his Barack Obama T-Shirt with a blown-up image of the candidate's face. To this young man's dismay, the election officials requested that he remove his shirt, to which his response was, "but it's cold." I'm not sure he got it right away, but eventually turned his shirt inside-out and proceeded to his voting cubicle. This started my thinking as to what other rules are enforced on election day that I might not know about, since, to be honest, though I understand why, I was not aware you couldn't wear political paraphernalia to the polls.
So I Googled voting rules and regulations in Connecticut and found some interesting "did-you-know" facts:
-- Connecticut is among the top 15 states with
-- the largest disparities between citizens of color and officials of color in all elected positions -- the largest racial disparities in voter turnout -- the largest low-English-proficient population
This is just silly. I heard this story earlier in the week, but was hoping it was merely a rumor, and considering it is posted on Politico.com, I'm not entirely sure it still isn't. But if it is true, then it's a sad, sad day for music and politics. "Joe the Plumber" has apparently signed a deal, or will be signing, for a country music album that could launch as early as Inauguration day. What?!? Why?!?
While it appears that he refuted the claims about his country music career, the rumors are surfacing because one of his new media managers is country music producer Aaron Tippin. Media managers? At first I sympathized with this poor man whose name was dragged through the mud because of one harmless little question and a bit of miscommunication. But now he is capitalizing on the thirsty media and has somehow extended his 15 minutes into who-knows-how-long.
Whether his future plans are to run for Congress, release an album, or buy that lucrative business that sparked all this, one important question remains: Why do we still care?? And maybe more importantly, how does this reflect on national politics? I bet McCain and Obama are slightly regretting opening the Samuel Wurzelbacher can of worms in that third debate. McCain perhaps moreso, since now it seems that both his Vice Presidential nominee and his central argument for the campaign have gone "rogue,"--neither appear by his side at the rally in Joe's home state!
McCain's spot on SNL last night was certainly more amusing than Sarah Palin's appearances, but this is now two SNL cameos from the Republican candidates before election day. Smart move? I'm not so sure. Obama's television exposure lately has been nothing short of presidential, and I'm sure he has his many advisors to thank for that. But I wonder what exactly McCain is trying to do? Is he giving up? The 6-minute skit below is one of those entertaining-because-it's-true scenarios, and I'm not sure that's what the American people need to refuel their support or confidence in the Republican presidential nominee. But that's just my opinion.
Interesting also that Sarah Palin did not appear with him. Does her absence reinforce the humorous message Tina Fey presents? It certainly seems so.
PS. Don't forget your free cup of coffee at Starbucks on Tuesday! Woot!
I have to say that Courtney's post on the "people behind the campaigns" was encouraging, especially in light of so many people that I know who care so little about politics and the outcome of this election. It is inspiring to think that thousands of citizens, young and old, work tirelessly for what they think is a chance at a better future for our country.
But then, I read this article on CBSnews.com that exposes a somewhat darker side of these volunteers. In swing states across the country, there has been a serious effort on the part of the media, celebrities and campaigns to register new voters, but apparently there is an equal underground effort to keep certain voters from registering or voting at all. The article claims that dirty tricks are in no way specific to this election and have been reported in all presidential elections in the past few decades, but the tactics and number of reports this year far surpasses records. From people knocking on individual doors to question a person's legality and citizenship, to anonymous phone calls urging voters to cast their ballot over the phone, to emails instructing people that Republicans and Democrats have different days for voting, Rep. on Tuesday and Dem. on Wednesday, every dihonest and incredulous effort has been made by these "activists" to suppress would-be voters.
Most of the incidents cited in the article illustrate Republican misuse of power in deterring new, young and minority voters from registering or voting Democratic. And while I can't believe that either party would succumb to such measures, I find it hard to believe that all of the fault rests with the conservatives. Surely if there is this kind of corrupt support for the right wing, the leftists must also have their "means of persuasion." But the article mentions nothing of this, and I wonder about media bias and what kind of effect this negative article has on people's views of the Republican party.
I suppose if we want a group of people who care wholeheartedly about politics and the way our country is run, we must also be prepared to have those who ruthlessly abuse politics and refuse to open their eyes to other possibilities. And unfortunately, as Courtney highlights, the media doesn't give much attention to the former.
It seems that following Obama's infomercial on Wednesday, which drew and held even more viewers than the conclusion of the World Series that followed, media forces have been talking nonstop about the effects this will have on the campaign. They love him or they hate him, it was a great move or a cocky undertaking. But amidst this, I found at least one traditionally liberal news source that was able to run a mostly unbiased article on the economic policies of our two major candidates.
The LA Times ran a piece by Ralph Vartabedian this morning, which headlines on their campaign page, titled "McCain, Obama economic policies appear to be politics as usual." In the article, he compares McCain's economic plan to the tactics used in the Reagan administration, and Obama's policy as similar to Franklin D. Roosevelt, claiming that neither candidate is suggesting any dramatic change from past presidencies. Vartabedian claims that neither candidates' plan will be very effective and that both tend to be short-sighted, focusing on the immediate economic crisis and "dodging the most severe long-term economic problems facing the nation." He also suggests that, as with every election, the biggest problems are those that neither campaign is talking about--the social security deficit and medicare deficit as examples.
Though it's a long article, he has some good comments from economic researchers on both sides of the aisle and makes a very appropriate and educated conclusion-- "You have to vote on the basis of instinct, because neither candidate is saying very much."
Now, while he doesn't promote either candidates' plans, I use the term "mostly unbiased" because I wonder, if you are against both options, are you not still biased toward something else? So is it even possible for a media source to be completely unbiased? Is there a difference between not being in support of anything and being against everything? In my opinion, no...but I am not done searching.
I would normally have thought it absurd to attribute voter turnout and the outcome of a presidential election to Mother Nature. However, during my 90-minute drive to Hartford this morning, I realized why USA Todaythought it important enough to run a story on the effects of rain on the popular vote. The reason? People can't drive!
As soon as it drizzles in this state, trees collapse, power lines go down, electricity is out and all drivers suddenly become 90 year-old women. Connecticut is not alone in the phenomenon, but it surely must be one of the worst. However, I don't think McCain is getting his hopes up for our seven little blue electoral votes swinging to the red because of a monsoon. According to USA Today though, it's a real possibility in other parts of the country.
From the article: "A study conducted by political scientists last year verified the old American political adage that Republicans should pray for rain on Election Day. The researchers found that for every one inch increase in rain above its Election Day normal, the Republican presidential candidate received approximately an extra 2.5% of the vote."
The study mainly focused on precipitation, as it was determined that cold or hot weather alone was not enough to significantly deter people from voting. But rain and snow will do the trick. The article states that poor weather greatly reduces the average number of voters for specific towns (compared with previous voting years). But why is it that "… poor weather conditions are positively related to Republican Party vote share in presidential elections?" Why does rain work for Republicans? Well, they just don't say.
The chart to the left shows how many voters were supposedly influenced by weather in past elections. While the 1992 election by far has the highest number, it was not nearly as close as the 2000 election which comes in second. So is it possible that rain really made Gore lose?
And will it turn this election around for the Republican campaign? Check out Pennslyvania, Ohio, Florida, New Hampshire Virginia and New Mexico below. According to this map... I think not.
This is an interesting graph I found on electoral-vote.com illustrating which of the presidential candidates won the favor of the electoral college during specific critical times of the campaign. As you can see, according to this account, there are only two instances in which Obama fell below McCain--the first was during the Democratic primaries before he won the party nomination and the second came surprisingly during the Wall Street meltdown just before the first debate. While his favor rose substantially after the debate, he actually experienced an increase before that night, suggesting that perhaps McCain's actions in suspending his campaign were really as detrimental as we all supposed them to be (considering that between the Wall Street meltdown and the debate, the only substantial political happening was McCain's request to postpone the event and head to Washington, rejected by Obama).
The chart also shows the reaction to some of the ads we talked about tonight, specifically the Paris Hilton ad, as well as the Democratic and Republican National Conventions, during which time Obama seemed to be declining as McCain began to rise (assumedly as a result of Sarah Palin).
The October results are particularly interesting and seem to exaggerate the divide between the two candidates, but are supposedly based on factual estimates. Analyzing this chart alone would appear to relieve this presidential election of any "surprise" outcome.
While browsing the Living Room Candidate for campaign 2008 ads I haven't seen yet, I found a particularly interesting take on the media's "love affair" with Obama by the McCain camp. Though it was funded by republicans and aimed at discrediting Barack Obama, the majority of the ad displays media praises of him. While Tucker Carlson's comments are peculiar and bit scary, the rest actually seem complimentary, making me wonder about the effectiveness of running an ad like this. If an undecided voter were to see an ad sponsored by McCain that claimed the entire media was in favor of Barack, what would convince them that these educated professionals are wrong?
This ad demonstrates a tactic in which McCain or other republican representatives have very little roles as the entire three minutes is occupied by media clips. Is this as affective as later ads with voice overs telling people what to think? Which is more respectable, and is honorable as important as affective?
I found this on a sports fan forum, oddly enough (I love Google searches), but the original is from an article on cracked.com. It was titled, "What Campaign Ads Would Look Like if the Voting Age was 6," highlighting the current silliness of presidential ads lately and stating that they couldn't be any more juvenile than if they were created for kids. Here are the some ads, first for McCain, then Obama.
And here are some if 13 year-old girls were the voter constituency.
Two of my favorites, one for McCain and one, ever so distastfully for Obama.... Finally, the top three (it was a contest for viewers to make ads reflecting the absurdity of the campaigns).
I don't know if this was meant to be humorous, but I found Joe the Plumber's rant kind of funny and random. He reminds me of one of my dad's friends. I realize he's middle class and all, but why do we seriously care what this guy thinks?
Nothing gets youth interested in politics like half-naked girls dancing and singing, except, of course, half-naked girls fighting while dancing and singing. So naturally, the sexy ads appeared just as quickly on YouTube as the comedy videos. A fairly popular video site called BarelyPolitical.com houses all of the "Obama Girl" and "McCain Girl" videos that have been floating around the Internet since as early as spring 2007. I thought they might be a good segue between sexism week and humor week. The two below are sort of the introductory episodes of these two political "representatives" and there are dozens more to follow.
Here we see a sequel of both girls as sort of superheroes--Super Obama Girl (during the primaries so she's mainly opposing Clinton) and the Incredible McCain Girl (spoof on the Hulk.. "don't make her angry, you won't like her when she's angry" as the description says).
I'm sure other people have posted about this already, and I apologize for not checking first before posting it again, but below is a video from SNL's website of one of Palin's two cameos on last night's episode. The video shows Amy performing a rap that was "supposedly" written for Sarah Palin to perform, but she forgoes her role in the beginning of the skit claiming that the stunt would be "damaging" to the campaign. Duhh... Media, however, are entertaining the thought that perhaps the skit was written for Sarah rather than Amy.
Regardless, according to statistics found overnight by Nielsen Media Research, Palin's appearance attracted the largest audience for SNL in 14 years, with nearly 17 million people tuning in for the first half hour of the show. The Associated Press claimed the show hadn't seen that kind of viewership since Nancy Kerrigan guest-hosted in 1994 following her assault. However, of the 14 million who continued watching until the end (a huge number for any midnight show), I wonder how impressed they were? Some comments I found stated that they thought her SNL performance was similar to her debate skills--uneventful and slightly boring--while others, including McCain, noted how "wonderful" she was. However, the former group attributes this sentiment to the same reasoning applied to her debates and interviews--we all think she's fantastic if she simply doesn't screw up.
The picture to the right was the only instance in the entire show of Fey and Palin together, and it lasted maybe 2.5 seconds as Fey wisked herself offstage and Palin entered to replace her. The two barely made eye contact, and even in the SNL backstage video, there are no shots of Palin and Fey in the same room. Was this to avoid direct comparison of the imitation to the real thing? And what would that accomplish? Or maybe Tina Fey simply is not fond of Governor Palin, as evidenced by her appearance on Letterman earlier in the week. Whatever the reason, it seems more people tuned in to watch these two women than ever expected, more than half the number of presidential debate viewers! And even though Palin and Fey didn't face off, Palin supporters should be proud of their candidate for her role with proclaimed Democrat and Obama-supporter Alec Baldwin, as their banter, in my opinion, was quite well done. Still, as Jon Stewart says of Palin, expectations are exceeded if she "remained upright and didn't drool."
Did this PR stunt prove anything to America, or was it simply the Republican party's acknowledgement that she really doesn't have much more to lose, so why not play around a little? What does it all mean? I'm sure we'll find out later this week in the polls. But more importantly, what should it all mean, and what impact should something like this really have on a presidential election? Hopefully...less than I'm expecting it will.
I know racism and sexism were our topics for last week, but I thought this was interesting in light of all the "niceties" that have been going around lately. Videos and stories like the Al Smith dinner speeches available on Kasey's blog seem to have masked, even a little, the slander and mud-slinging of the 2008 debates and campaigning. But the video below proves that, even if McCain and Palin are playing nice, the campaign teams are still hard at it.
The LA Times ran an article today about a photo that recently appeared in a Republican newsletter in California illustrating a fake $10 food stamp with Barack Obama's face on a donkey surrounded by fried chicken, kool-aid, and watermelon. Republicans who viewed the newsletter were horrified, but the editor claimed she had no idea the image had racial implications.
So apparently Sarah Palin has taken a cue from past politicians and will be facing her SNL doppelgänger in tomorrow night's show. Unfortunately, this will most likely raise her ratings and popularity, demonstrating she is a "big" enough person to be criticized and imitated. According to newsday.com, Palin told reporters that she is not only looking forward to gueststarring alongside her popular foil, but hopes she has a chance to imitate her as well...that is, Palin imitating Fey imitating Palin, in case you lost track. She said, "I love her, she's a hoot, and she's so talented. It would be fun to meet her, imitate her and keep on giving her new material." I somehow don't think she'll have any problem doing that last one.
Not to exhaust the issue of Sarah Palin's supposedly sexist portrait in the media, I just came across a Fox 61 News page with a variety of photos, including the recently risque leg clip, that helps to illustrate the different ways the media likes to "portray Palin." Here are a few of my favorites.
Now what does it look like they're looking at up there? This next one is a shot from the Vice Presidential debate. I have to say it is just inappropriate. I'm sure Biden was wearing equally nice designer shoes...why don't his feet get any spotlight? Sexism.
And, one of the most controversial photos lately (a few days old, so I apologize) --Palin's Newseek cover. Complete with wrinkles, crow's feet, clumpy mascara, age spots and sun freckles--untouched and unflattering. But she's real, right? Isn't that her whole platform?
Finally, the top three (it was a contest for viewers to make ads reflecting the absurdity of the campaigns).
