I'M BACK!!

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....

And even more pertinent to tomorrow's class--Bobby Jindal's tweets and twitts! Looks pretty presidential, no?

Here's an interesting little comparison:

Barack Obama followers: 144,203
John McCain followers: 5,610
Bobby Jindal followers: 464
Sarah Palin followers: 10
Mike Hucakbee followers: 0

Al-Qaida is angry...aren't they always?

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...

Uber-Conservative News

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!

Here's another poster on the same site talking about how Obama's presidency will result in a steady flow of "absurd racist claims," like the recent Connecticut man who apparently claimed breathalyzers discriminate against blacks.

FOX news thinks Obama will disappoint....naturally

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...

Presidential Codes

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.

This photo-story in the Hartford Courant displays 24 pictures of past Presidents, First Ladies and first children with their secret service code names underneath. It's quite interesting how much the names say about their personalities, sort of like summing our "code lists" up in one word.

Here are some of the good ones.

Codenames: Renegade ...............Renaissance .......................Tumbler

What are they talking about?

Here are some stories I have noticed the media pushing lately (with the exception of the Clinton-Secretary-of-State story since that's everywhere):

1. Automakers Bailout - Fox news ran a story that GOP lawmakers opposed bailing out the auto industry in Detroit, while CBS news reports that Democrats are in favor of the legislation but not without certain strings attached (automakers would be required to explore new technologies for fuel efficiency and environmental safety)

2. Lists for the President-elect - Whether its a story about politicians making wish lists for legislation they are eager to see, or media making lists for Obama's potential new cabinet members and administration, there seem to be a lot of lists floating around. Also rather prominent is the story of Obama's search for at least one Republican for his administration.

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...

Glimpse of a celebrity presidency...

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.

Despite all this hype, it looks like a lot of people will be disappointed this January, as the demand for tickets far exceeds the supply. I wouldn't be surprised to see a single ticket going for $25,000 or more come January. There is even a Facebook event titled "Obama's Inaguration" with more members attending than total tickets available: more than 252,000 facebookers!

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.

Halloween Hate Crime

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?

Video Your Vote

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.

I like this one... but I'm a sappy girl.

young voters pull through

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!

Incongruent Numbers

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?

Last Words

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."

Voting Do's and Don'ts

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

Because Courtney did it...

I seriously don't like Joe...

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!

Last Efforts in the Ad World

Here are some of the latest ads from McCain and Obama, appearing on YouTube. See what you think about their last efforts.

"I am Joe" for McCain/Palin




"One Day to Change the World" for Obama/Biden

Definitely entertaining...but Presidential?

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!

Politics at its best...and worst...

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.

See... they CAN be impartial...

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.