Looking Ahead

A couple other interesting articles I found on Republicans looking ahead to what they will have to do for 2012. Many believe that they will regain popularity once Democrats raise tax cuts--which will in turn anger many people. But, on the other hand, if the Dems. help stimulate the economy, create better health care plans, work to create new jobs and help the environment with green energy--then they will have a tough battle.

GOP defining itself

I came across this article on MSNBC about how the GOP will define itself in 2010. The current issues with bailing out the auto industry will fall on their shoulders: if they fail to help them out, and the economy worsens, they will be to blame. A lot of these problems that we are facing today are because of the poor decisions that the Republicans made while they were in office and I think the elections in 2010 and 2012 will try to reflect a new way of thinking. Already we see people from the party, including Jindal (in the video I posted the other day) saying that Yes, the Republicans made some mistakes, they need to acknowledge that and then move on to try improve the situation. I think any candidate that would back anything that has happened would have a hard time gaining popularity. Jindal knows that the GOP climate right now is not positive, and if he, or anybody else on the republican ticket wants a chance, they need to be the first to acknowledge that they messed up and it can't happen again!

Fox twists it up again

Fox, the "Fair and Just" news program just can't stop twisting the news, or reporting on things that really don't matter, like this article about hwo much money Obama spent on campaigning, including temporary tattoos!
Hmmm..but I forget? How much money did we spend on this war in Iraq? And how many billions of dollars are we in debt now because of what this administration did??

Jindal states that we should allow oil exploration in more U.S. places, like coastlines and wilderness areas so that we aren't so dependent on foreign oil, yet check out these statistics I found:
Rated 0% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence.
Jindal scores 0% by CAF on energy issues
OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005-2006 CAF scores as follows:

0% - 30%: opposition of energy independence (approx. 206 members)
30% - 70%: mixed record on energy independence (approx. 77 members)
70%-100%: support for energy independence (approx. 183 members)

He also talks about implementing clean/renewable energy, but he votes against most things that would help promote this.

Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. Creating Long-term Energy Alternatives for the Nation (CLEAN) Act
Opponents support voting NO because:
I am wearing this red shirt today, because this shirt is the color of the bill that we are debating, communist red. It is a taking. It will go to court, and it should be decided in court.
This bill will increase the competitive edge of foreign oil imported to this country. If the problem is foreign oil, why increase taxes and make it harder to produce American oil and gas? That makes no sense. We should insert taxes on all foreign oil imported. That would raise your money for renewable resources. But what we are doing here today is taxing our domestic oil. We are raising dollars supposedly for renewable resources, yet we are still burning fossil fuels.

First off, our problems with global warming and depleting environment aren't going to change if we can't stop saying we are are going to implement clean renewable energy, yet still working with oil. We've had the technology for solar, and wind power for YEARS ..theres no reason why more can't be done right now.

If I were on Jindals campaign team I would have to make his position on these issues look positive. He does want money raised for renewable resources and our dependence on foreign oil to start. He also believes in creating more jobs here in the U.S. with clean gas, since most of them are currently overseas. He is aware of the fact that by working on renewable resources we will create thousands of green jobs--helping to stimulate the economy and put a damper on global warming.
This amendment takes out all of the energy production. It is a callous disregard for the jobs that have been lost over the last 30 years of following an anti-energy policy. The people who work in oil and gas, their jobs are in the Middle East or Canada. We have exported their jobs. If this amendment passes, we are going to send the rest of them. We should know how important it is to create jobs in this country, to create clean natural gas in this country, so that it can be the bridge to the future.

Jindal on getting Republicans back

Jindal does another interview with Fox. It seems that he is trying to gain popularity by acknolwedging the fact that the Republicans have messed up. Without actually answering the question she throws at him about if he believes the current administration is to blame, he dances around it by saying that the Republicans aren't ahead in the senate anymore, and that is because they have been saying things they don't follow through with--that was the breakdown of the Republican party. I notice he also talks about many other issues within the questions he's asked--trying to get out his ideas on healhcare, the economy, welfare, government spending etc. He's not afraid to say what he believes, he's taking every opportunity he gets to get his beliefs out. "Conservative solutions" seems to be his favorite phrase.

Environment: Energy--'conservative solutions'. He believes we need more domestic oil and gas production, nuclear, biofuel, clean energy. So we're not as dependent on other countries. He believes this will help the auto companys and generate new jobs.

I had to post this, as I am the "Environmental Campaign Manager" for Jindal 2012, and me just thinking it's very important!

Robert Redford speaks out on Rachel Maddow about Bush's secret plan to open wilderness in Utah to drilling before he leaves office! How sneaky!

The Non-Obama

The more I read about Bobby Jindal the more I think the tag line" The Next Obama" is so false...
check out his policies and voting record here and you'll see what I mean.

On a different note, that of technology and the media, I found this article on NPR today about "media ecology"--how our lives are basically run by the media mania that surrounds us. In case you don't have time to go to the article heres an interesting tidbit:
"For example, we feel swamped by how much information is instantly available on the front page of The New York Times or on NPR.org. But Berreby notes that a tribal African who hunted to survive would be swamped by information when seeing a wildebeest in a field: Male or female? Alone? Wind direction? Predators nearby? What kind of trees in the distant forest? None of this data is mediated, trivial or distant. We have (had?) a lot of Darwinian hard-wiring to process that kind of data.
That isn't true of media information: It doesn't engage all the senses. It is all crafted by humans, much of it deliberately intended to sell or market or be addictive — or get our attention. It is harder to filter this information than unmediated information, harder to attend to only the important. "We aren't overwhelmed by information," Berreby said. "We're overwhelmed by information anxiety."

I know I definitly feel overwhelemed and anxious when looking at certain news websites or any website really that has too much stuff! Yes, if we have an hour of free browsing time it's fine, but who really does have that time? So--the question then is: what does this mean for Jindal and the future of campaigns with media? While most Americans soak up all the technology (youtube, facebook, myspace, twittering, comedy central ...) I think many are certainly feeling overwhelemed as the article says. When it gets to be too much, what do you do? Unplug from it all!

So what would happen if we just unplugged? Where would our main source of news come from? Well, the daily papers and journals I suppose that you could subscribe to or pick up at the library. Word-of- mouth for sure--nothing spreads faster, but then theres the truth factor with that. Perhaps radio, which is free of visual stimuli. There are still other sources to go to, but when it comes down to it if you want to be up to the minute on what is going on, you'll find the best media outlet. However, Jindal and any future candidate need to realize that too much media might not be a good idea.
On a side note, I think one plus for The Atlantic is that their website isn't very cluttered. It's just enough and has a nice visual appeal.

Jindal needs more than his age

This article in Huffington Post points out that while Jindal may be young and energetic like Obama, he will need more than just that and the support of conservatives to get enough steam to make it on the ballot in 2012.
"Equally importantly, Jindal's background would play out very differently than Obama's if he were the Republican nominee. First, South Asians are still too few in number to make an impact at the voting booth comparable to African Americans or Latinos, so Jindal would have to appeal to other groups."
If Jindal wants a chance, he needs to start getting his name out in these other groups of people, especially minorities. While America may have been ready for an African American president, are they ready for one of Indian decent? There was a ton of controversy over Obama's past and religion...Jindal was a Hindu before converting to Catholicism. Most of these people were conservative Republicans, I wonder if they would argue the same: "once a muslim (hindu) always a..." if it's someone on their parties ticket.

The writer also points out that while it may the Republican party to have Jindal on the ticket because it will show that they are more diverse and attuned to everyones needs, it can't simply be about race, just as it was not simply about race for Obama.

I think Jindal should make an effort on the social networks and especially get out to colleges and university's--words spread fast around campus's and he may gain a good amount of the younger vote if his policies are attuned to the climate in 2010 and on...

He's Getting Around...

Well our man Jindal does seem to be getting around already--here he is on The Tonight Show talking about his parents and growing up among other things (and he even throughs in some humor.) He has a young vibe and seems energetic, which I definitly think he wants to get out there if he is considering running for President. Also notice how Jay Leno doesn't really interrupt him when he is talking.



Here, Fox news talks to Jindal about what the Republicans need to do to get "back on track" in 2010 and 2012. He knows what he wants to say and he says it, and the media, especially Fox isn't afraid to bring up the fact that he might be running as a candidate in the future, even though Jindal himself won't give any clues.
Like we discussed in class last night, he definitly needs to get his name out there, especially in the social networks if we wants to gain access to all sorts of populations and people of all ages. The fact that the media is giving him any coverage already is to his advantage, and of course he has Hurricane Katrina behind him...

Jindal blogs

I checked out the Bobby Jindal site that Harry posted, and I think it's a metiocre (spelling?) site. Nothing very exciting, but he's got some good pictures up of him out in the community, with kids, visiting sites of the flood etc. I also took a peek at his blog (just a peek since I'm actually at work...I'll delve deeper later ;-). The blog seems to highlight some of the things he has been recently doing in Louisiana and what he plans to do...basically keeping people updated on his merits. At times the blog get's lengthy and wordy--and is a bit dull. I wonder if he actually writes it himself anyways or if he just gives whoever writes it some ideas and they write it up..? Hmmm...

He does have some good pictures throughout the blog though. That will help!

Jindal

"I want to be the best governor I can be for the people of Louisiana. Look, I think the American people are tired of campaigns and politics. We need to get behind our new president and our new Congress, support them, and stop being Democrats and Republicans. We need to work together to make sure our government is successful."

I thought this quote by Jindal was pretting interesting--that we should stop being democrats and republicans and come together. I completely agree, but I don't think anyone can completely just stop being who they are politically--but maybe we can keep more of an open mind.

As far as 2012 goes--if he is interested in the presidency he's getting a head start for sure. It's funny that Obama hasn't even been sworn in yet, and we are already having media coverage of who will be running in 2012. How about just focusing on the now and how Obama is going to solve our problems. And I think the "next Obama" is cheesy...I mean, yes perhaps they look similar, share the youthful factor, but as far as that goes I don't think they should be comparing them (yet.)

Are you on Facebook?

These days, who isn't? What used to be network for college students only, has now been opened to the public and organizations as well. Recently, the NYT joined Facebook:

NYT sees success in Facebook push
The New York Times is happy to be your Facebook friend. An internal memo yesterday from Times president Scott Heekin-Canedy touted the newspaper’s “successful” advertising campaign on Facebook in the days following the presidential election.
Members of the leading social networking site could answer the NYT’s question, “What should Barack Obama do first as president?” and send each other gift icons with a fake Times front page with “OBAMA WINS” stripped across the top. Heekin-Canedy wrote:
The goals of the campaign were to increase our number of Facebook fans; raise awareness of NYTimes.com as an interactive news center; and engage the Facebook community in a conversation about the election outcome.

The Times took out a roadblock, or exclusive, ad on the front page of Facebook with a brief video of Obama and an invitation to submit comments. Heekin-Canedy said the ad was seen by 68.3 million people, and 34,000 comments were shared. The free gift was sent by Facebook users to their friends more than 400,000 times. And in the process, the Times nearly quadrupled the number of fans on its Facebook page — a figure the Grey Lady takes quite seriously:
We increased our number of fans more than three times in just 24 hours — from 49,000 to 164,000 — and in the process far exceeded our 2008 goal of 100,000 fans…Possibly the greatest success of this campaign, however, is that our fans continue to rapidly grow…into a powerful, free word-of-mouth network that we will leverage for future marketing messages.

Organizations, like the New York Times are jumping onboard Facebook to increase awareness of what they have to offer us. According to this article the Times increased their number of fans drastically in a 24 hour period--of course, due to social networking. An idea, video or thought can circulate faster on Facebook than it can if it's in an actual newspaper. It's also far easier and conveniant to hop online, check out your friends pages and NYT at the same time.

I work as the Publicity Coordinator at the Library in Litchfield and among the many things that I am exploring with the director is joining a social network like Facebook or Myspace to get our name out there more. We have an outstanding number of people who visit the Library, partly due to press release that we send to newspapers, advertisements on the radio, but also our website. We have a blog (which I also write for!!) and all sorts of research tools and information on the website. The website is highly accessed, as is the blog. We live in a technological world, whether we want to or not, and more and more people are turning to technology as a conveniant and informative tool. I know many other libraries are using Facebook/Myspace to establish more of a connection with their patrons. For instance, you can get their feedback on how the library (organization) is doing, what could be improved, what do they like the most etc. It's also great for teens who practically live on Facebook. In order to market to all populations you need to advertise in all sorts of venues.

I believe many other newspapers, journals, magazines and organizations will be joining the social sphere in the near future! Even organizations such as Defenders of Wildlife and Sierra Club have their own pages.

Sean Penn :Conversations with Chavez

Well, I'm sorry for my absense. The past four or five days have found me extremely busy...no time to sit down with my computer and blog. I finally have a brief moment today before I go and stuff myself with more food than my body has capacity for, but mostly enjoy family relaxation time!

Here is an interesting tidbit I found on The Nation. Sean Penn actually went to visit with Chavez and Castro, moved by the proclaimation that Pat Robertson said about "we should just kill Chavez, its cheaper than starting a war!" What he found were some intersting things behind the two men...much of which he felt was positive. I think it's worth a look, and theres also a youtube video of Penn talking about it.

I thought htis also played into our discussion of technology---where would we be without YouTube? I often argue against some of the newest technology or every little thing that they have out now,(blackberries,Kindle) but I do love YouTube because of the array of information we can all get our hands on!

Happy Thanksgiving

Obama the AntiChrist??

Well, well, well...imagine my surprise today when finding this article about how some are believing that Obama is the AntiChrist! I think that because of the condition the world is in today people are honestly just going crazy...I mean, the article says that someone who won the lottery in Illionois (Obamas state) had the numbers 666---the sign of the Beast. This information was attained by Tod Strandberg, editor and founder of RaptureReady.com an online sight about caluclations and predictions about the end of the world.

Some peoples beliefs just cause them to be in fear and I do think the media fuels the fire on this at times, especially with all those "red alerts" we used to have regarding terrorism. Personally, I believe that was all to help Bush's ratings and his plans for invading these countries. Surprising no one called him the AntiChrist (to my knowledge anyways...)

Bright Side for our Environment?

With the failing economy our depleted environment and growing problems with global warming, theres a lot to be thinking about, and stressed about. Luckily, it seems we've finally elected someone who actually cares about these things! Obama seemingly has an innovative and refreshing plan for helping our economy and the earth--more sustainable energy, cutting carbon emissions, cutting U.S. oil consumption...and the list goes on! Let's hope that these issues take some precedence over others, since it'll not only be benefiting the future of our planet, but stimulating our economy as well!!

Life after Bush

Me being a bit(okay, maybe more) of an environmentalist, I had to post this.

I think it stands on it's own.

The First Dog

As Lauren posted in her blog, it seems the media is at a loss for what to cover next. I think this cartoon is kind of funny, although I notice in this cartoon as well as others that I've seen that the media is already playing upon Obamas ears! I guess they don't have anything else to work with yet...

More race...

More race issues are popping up...this time around the world! NPR explores how Obama election has sparked many prejudice comments and newspaper headlines around the world: namely Europe (Poland, Italy, Germany). One of the problems is that many of these countries have never dealt with race as the U.S. has over the years:
Julian Bond, chairman of the NAACP, says, "The big difference here is that the United States has been thinking about and dealing with race since we were founded. These countries in Europe are relative newcomers to the conversation about race. They are much less familiar with confronting their own bigotry."

Oppps, forgot to include this one in my last post. This is the second article in The Nation that questions Obama's pending choice for secretary of state--there is talk he may pick Robert Gates, who worked in Carters adminstration and has some history provoking Russia:

Improved relations with Russia are critical to the change toward a more peaceful world that Obama has promised, but it is disquieting in the extreme that some of his closest advisers are inveterate hawks with a history of needlessly provoking tension with the Russians during the cold war days. Key among them is Zbigniew Brzezinski, who, as President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, engineered the US involvement on the side of Islamic fanatics in Afghanistan.

It was decades later that the truth came out that the Soviets invaded only after being deliberately provoked by US hawks. One of them was Robert Gates, who worked for Brzezinski in the Carter administration and who is currently the secretary of defense; President-elect Obama is now reported to be considering retaining Gates in that position. A 1996 press release promoting Gates's memoir promised the revelation of "Carter's never-before-revealed covert support to Afghan mujahedeen--six months before the Soviets invaded."

Red Flag Warning from The Nation!

Two articles appeared on The Nation's homepage today regarding some potentially bad choices Obama may make in picking positions for his cabinet. The Summers Conundrum discusses the possibility that Obama might pick Lawrence Summers, one of the people involved in the financial crisis as well as a whole slew of economic disasters in other countries he advised in the past. This would seem absurd that he would even be considered to hold position of treasury secretary! The Nation even goes so far as to say Palin seems less scary compared to this choice:

The bailout, as currently implemented, threatens to devastate America's economy much as Russia's and Lithuania's were devastated before. The idea that this is exactly the right time and place to put Larry Summers in charge of our economy's future is so frightening that it makes the Sarah Palin vice presidential choice seem almost quaint by comparison. Let's hope the rumors are wrong.

First Lady

Here's something from NPR to go along with what we were talking about Michelle Obama and the role she will play in this Presidency. Not only will she be "mom," but she will continue to speak out for women's rights. Carl Sporonza says in the interview that after the novelty of and scrutiny of Michelle as a First African American lady (and Obama) "they will be judged as individual human beings."

Nation Radio Show

This broadcast on The Nation radio, regarding the fundamental and progressive change is in store with Obama and what is means to have elected an African American President, is worth listening to. Also interesting is what the journalist brings up about that moment when we see the First Family--Obama, Michelle and their children and how this moment was also essentially highlighting women. The respect that Obama gives his wife and how she stands next to him, as opposed to others who stand behind their husband, says a lot about their relationship and how he feels about women. They also mention that inevitabldy Obama will make decisions that we might not always agree with, but he will work to bring a better good to the country. One commentator in the interview also says that this election wasn't like the 2004 election where we were voting for "the lesser of two evils", we voted for someone who we thought could actually make a difference.
*The broadcast is a little lengthy, but very interesting*

Skepticism

Before the election, it seemed that all the media and everyone felt that Obama was ready to bring the necessary change: they were confident! Now, as I've seen on MSNBC and some other recent articles, there are questions of whether or not Obama can do it. For instance, while I was watching Olberman last night, I saw an advertisement for an upcoming Maddow show where she will be interviewing someone (sorry, I forgot the person) about whether or not Obama will really do what he says he is going to do. Then theres this article from NPR: Can Obama Make Good on Promises About War? Even The Nation runs this article (Obama's Dissapointing First Choice) about Obama's pick of Rahm Emanuel--they aren't sure he was the right person to pick for Chief of Staff.
I wonder if they are trying to somewhat downplay their clear support of one candidate over the other?

Just for fun: Check out these political cartoons posted on MSNBC (scroll down they are on the right! I couldnt copy the link since it was a slideshow!)

NPR covering race

NPR is doing a good job of bringing up interestng topics on race. Here is one from Morning Edition. This commentary explores the ideas of black americans not being ready for a black president. He says many will think we can roll up the civil rights carpet, but in reality just because we've elected an african american president, that doesn't mean there aren't still many racist people and feelings circulating across the country, and world for that matter. I don't think we can just stop fighting for equality now, this is just one positive step in the right direction.
On a personal note: I don't believe that we will ever completely end racism, but we can hopefully work to end stereotypes. For example, I was talking with someone the other day about a friends boss. The boss refused to vote in the election because he felt like both candidates were idiots, and he wasn't ready to vote for a black president. He has also made comments about not trusting a Mexican. These are sterotypical feelings and biases and quite frankly I believe many people still feel this way.
If anything, I hope that Obama will prove that it doesn't matter what color or race you are, what matters is that you work for the American people and you work for world peace. I think those feelings of superiority need to be diminshed.

Obama!!!!

Well, needless to say I am estatically (is that how you spell it?) happy about Obama winning.

Since I had class on Tuesday night, I listened to NPR and CNN on satelllite radio on my way to and back from school. On my way to school, which was about 5:30, one of the CNN newscasters was talking about how hard it would be to wait until ALL polls closed. He said there was no way that the media would wait until west coast polls closed to reveal some of the results--and that is true. Once Obama won Ohio and PA. it was all over, even though polls hadn't closed yet on the west coast. Also interesting, was the fact that CNN made quite a few statements implying that McCain really didn't have a chance to win with the way the polls were looking (this was about 9:30 p.m.). I think after he won Ohio and PA., two key states, the outlooks were in his favor and no one could deny that.

In some ways I relate this election to that of when Kennedy won. He too was young and fresh, and truly motivated all crowds of people, especially younger just like I think Obama did. He gives off that same kind of energy and compassionate air that was so loved by Kennedy.

I think this article in the Nation is worth reading. Here is one part of it:

For others of us at an advanced age, Obama's success is more shocking. We can see it as a monumental rebuke to tragic history--the ultimate defeat of "white supremacy." That vile phrase was embedded in American society (even the Constitution) from the outset and still in common usage when some of us were young. Now it is officially obsolete. Racism will not disappear entirely, but the Republican "Southern strategy" that marketed racism has been smashed. Americans will now be able to see themselves differently, North and South, white and black. The changes will spread through American life in ways we cannot yet fully imagine. Let us congratulate ourselves on being alive at such a promising moment.

I think it does say how far our nation has come to have elected a African American President, and I am hopeful that there will be many more nationalities represented in the future, however I'm not sure that I believe this will completely change the minds of those embedded in racism. It's a step, a promising one as the Nation states, but we have a ways to go yet!

The Boss!

I had to post this article, not only because it involves one of my absolute favorite singers, but because it is a very inspirational article too! Bruce Springsteen spoke at the final Democratic rally in Ohio, telling his audience and millions of Americans on TV that we are at the crossroads!
This also feeds into our earlier discussions about celebrities endorsing certain candidates, and I think this year above all other years we have had a tremendous increase in the amount of celebrities and famous people who have endorsed a candidate (correct me if I'm wrong...)
I think that says a lot about the concern that Americans have at the way the country has been "run" (more like demolished) for the past 8 years. We are at "the crossroads" (as Springsteen says) and we need to come together as a nation to choose the person who will hopefully lead us back down the road that is truly what the U.S. stands for.

I think it's a fine thing that artists can use their music and their celebrity to inspire and change. We all can't be up on there on the stage, so thankfully there are people like Springsteen who can speak for us.

unnecesary?

As the final day before the election, I'm wondering if it was necessary for either campaign to issue new attack ads or comments...? I mean, at this point I think people truly have a clear idea in their heads of who they are going to vote for...if not, I'm not sure another attack ad is going to change their minds. I think for McCain, this is it: he is trying every last bit of what he's got to try and sway the votes:
"He will need to be. Even Davis acknowledged that McCain will probably need to walk a tightrope to put together enough states to eke out the 270 electoral votes needed for victory. To that end, McCain campaigned in two states leaning toward Obama, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire, that he hopes will provide part of the solution to that puzzle."

I'm just nervous about poll fraud again like we've seen before...I hope the media gets out there in the controversial states (ex: florida) to hopefully deter any sketchy poll changing!

Life without pre-election polling

Another interesting article on Slate today: Life without Polling. They do a nice "thought experiment" on what would happen, theoretically if we didn't have poll data given out at all during the election. One interesting point in the article:

In real life, pre-election polls seem to affect voter turnout in two ways. An apparent rout might make the outcome of an election seem like a foregone conclusion, leading voters to stay home. But polls showing a tight race tend to excite voters, and make them more likely to participate. We expect these effects to show up most acutely among young voters with a modest interest in politics—the kind who are interested enough to see the polls, but not fanatical about supporting their candidate

It seems that just like ads and propoganda are intended to cause excitment and sway voters a certain way, the polls do the same thing. They use the polls to their advantage to create a stir. As the article also says, the polls may cause some to jump on the bandwagon and go with the person who is clearly leading, or for a close race it brings more interest to get voters out that normally might not go to vote!

Holocaust 2?

I came across this incredibly scary but newsworthy article on Slate today. I can't believe this actually happened, but the Republican party in Penn. actually sent out a letter to the Jewish community implying that if Obama is elected, we might be seeing Holocaust 2. It then goes on to list a bunch of lies about Obama, mainly the whole Ayers terrorist connection and the church scandal issue. You can read the article and a copy of the letter here! I can't believe how much hate still exists in our world today and something like a Presidential election can bring out all that viciousness.

Long road to the polls

Here we go again...

Some people, namely the poor, minorities, students and elderly may find difficulties voting this election. The Nation wrote a good article about this and included a pretty neat cartoon to go along with it. It is outrageous and sad that voting, an issue we fought long and hard for in this country and that sets us apart from many others, is being skewed and tainted. We saw this in the 2000 and 2004 elections, especially in Florida. Many voters get turned away because the lines are too long, some don't have a license and other laws make it harder for lower class people to vote.

"Voter ID laws passed by GOP-majority legislatures in Georgia, Indiana and elsewhere serve as thinly veiled mechanisms for suppressing opposition voters, because those without driver's licenses or other forms of government-issued identity cards are more likely to be Democrats."

Even worse is that some of these people will simply walk away defeated, not even willing to fight for their right to vote!

"Some Republican-run states, most notably Florida, have introduced absurdly strict standards for the admission of new voters to the rolls, making it likely that thousands, if not tens of thousands, of them will have to go to extraordinary lengths on election day to prove that they have the right to cast a ballot. History suggests many of these new voters will either give up when challenged or fail to show up at all. "

I sincerely hope that we don't see any of this voter fraud again this year, and if for some reason we do, I hope the American people stand up and gather together to demand their rights.

The Real McCain...in case you didn't already know :-)

Here's a video one of my friends sent to me. You can clearly tell it's been cut in several spots as it's spliced together, but it's a good video to show how candidates, namely McCain, say one thing when it's conveniant and say another when the "heat" is on. I don't know how they think they can lie and get away with it--everything is documented now adays, whether it's not in writing, we have the media( tv, the internet, You Tube) and if they said it, we'll find it! It is sad that a candidate can't simply state what they believe in...that they have to change their beliefs based on what people want to hear, or what will help them win the election. But isn't that much of what this world is anyways? Doing anything you have to do to get ahead...

more ads!

This ad that Mondale put on in 1984 when he was running against Reagon definitly plays upon the fear factor! Note the low, strong drum beat that plays in the background--it sounds like one of those mystery movies when something bad is about to happen: doom! I also took a peek at the commentary to the side of the video which discussed some of what was happening in 1984 (a year before I was born :-) ! Interestingly enough, it turns out Mondale had picked a woman VP:

"The unenviable task of running against Reagan fell to former Vice President Walter Mondale. Mondale made two bold choices in his campaign, both of which backfired. First, he selected a woman, New York Representative Geraldine Ferraro, as his running mate. Media scrutiny of her husband’s finances put Ferraro on the defensive."

Well, doesn't that sound oddly familiar? Looks like picking a woman for a VP is tricky business...I guess before you do that you need to make sure she knows what she's talking about (ahem..Palin) and hopefully has a clean record behind her and her spouse (Palin's husband has been scrutinized as well in this campaign...and for much of it Palin has been on the defense of herself!)

"A smile that can prove only one thing: honesty"--so says one woman who was interviewed about why they would vote for Eisenhower. (well, we all know how deceiving those grins can be...)
Given the time period of this ad, it was incredibly surprising that a whole video was devoted to what women thought about Eisenhower! Although women did have a lot more rights in this time, it was interesting to see how much power they seemed to give to the election, since the narrator said : "let's not forget, it was women who voted in Eisenhower in the last election!" One thing to note: towards the end of the video they briefly discuss how vital a role women play in raising a family--notice how the woman is helping the children with their homework while the husband sits reading his newspaper!! Very 50's!
I think Eisenhower was definitly trying to make the point though that women play an important role in our society which probably gave him many bonus points!

These ads are also much longer than the ones we have today, which run at most a minute. They also seem to speak directly to the people about the issues, rather than stating what their opponent will/won't do!

advertising

The advertisement for "Ike" is fun: it's a cartoon, it has a catchy jingle and it's appealing. Also interesting is that many of the ads from the 60's are almost 5 minutes long--nowadays we can't even sit through a minute long commercial!

There are some similarities: This one for McGovern shows him out and responding to the people, just like this ad for Obama gives a "homey" feeling..we see his family, when he was a child, and we see him now out in the community. However, the ads that we see today are much more aggressive and focused on attacking the other candidate. In old advertising it was more focused on the candidate themselves and waht they wanted to do, speaking directly to the people as Kennedy does in this ad. Sure, we have much more interesting graphics today and technology fused into the advertisements, but what matters more is the values and beliefs of the candidate and what they are going to do.

I was surprised by Jackie Kennedy speaking Spanish in this ad! I'm not sure I've heard any ads in these times that speak to other cultures...I think this was a brave and honorable statement that the Kennedy's made with this ad: not just targeting the "white" race which would more than likely have their vote, but to the people that make up this country.

Scary...

Here's a very scary video one of my friends sent to me...I fail to comprehend how close-minded and bluntly racist some people still are in this country. Check out the eccentric blond woman who bombards the camera man!

Humor/Satire

Here's a funny one to start off with from MadTV--making fun of the campaign ads that have littered much of TV!

Campaign as Education

While reading the news today on NPR I came across this really neat radio clip from the program All Things Considered. The broadcast is called: When TV Changed Politics: Adlai Stevenson vs. Dwight Eisenhower back in 1952. I think this ties in perfectly to the topics of our class and is particularly interesting to hear some of media advertising back in the 50's as compared to now. Listen for the "Ike jingle" and other little songs that the campaigns used. Stevenson also says he believed that campaigns were meant to be education for the people and the candidates themselves. He said what he meant and gave the people the truth, bluntly ("I don't like taxes...") and said he wasn't going to make promises, but was going to try his best.
I feel especially this campaign now is based on false promises and both candidates, moreso McCain, avoided major issues, dancing around them.
I think that as TV really started to become more popular, so did campaign ads and propaganda, and perhaps this is what really began to take away from the "meat" of the campaigns and the importance of hearing the candidates beliefs and plans for the country, not just their jokes and arguments about the other candidate. Although media and TV itself are great resources, I think some things need to be re-evaluated on how it is used.

Final Debate

NPR doesn't believe that this debate will give McCain any of the boost he is looking for. I'm sure he will try his usual nasty comments aimed at Obama, but by now the American people aren't buying his lies and can quite frankly see right through him and Palin. Unless something drastic happens, I don't see that this debate will bring about any major turnaround in polls (but, surprises do happen). At this point, I believe people have a good idea about who they are voting for and why...and then there are those who will vote for the party they have always voted for "just because" it's what they've always done. Hard to teach an old dog new tricks.

We'll see.

Since I am not feeling well and couldn't come to class tonight, I thought I'd at least write a quick post about gender (I think thats what we would have discussed tonight...)
I came across this funny, but interesting article in The Nation today. Singer-songwriter Rosanne Cash writes an article on why she should be the VP candidate rather than Palin. The article is definitly sarcastic at times, but well written. I believe that many women are feeling embarrased by Palin's actions since she was elected VP. Cash makes a "resume" of reasons why she'd make a better candidate. Her take on "church and state", the war in iraq, and maverick personality are particulary of interest. Part of her argument is that she is as qualified, if not more, to be VP than Palin is. She has acted very unprofessional during much of the campaign, especially winking at the audience like she is at a modeling show. I would love to see a woman in the white house as much as the next person, but to see Palin basically make a mockery of the whole thing is unacceptable.
I think that original Tina Fey/Clinton SNL clip said a lot too: the woman acting as Clinton said in regards to sexism: "A point I'm quite frankly surprised people suddenly care about." So people only want to argue about sexism when it's about someone attractive. No one really gave a dang about what was said against Hillary.

More on this later...

I came across this posting in the Washington Post today and I think it is a good one. The Washington Post thus far has mostly been pro-Obama, and still is for the most part. However, this article takes a look at how the campaign has now turned into more of a war of the words, both McCain and now Obama are focusing more on blaming their opponent and smearing the others name, rather than focusing on the real issues here. I think Obama has many, many good ideas for our country and I think he is getting lost in McCains tactics here these past couple of weeks. Instead of solely focusing on bad-mouthing McCain, he needs to tell us what he is going to do to bring this change he talks about. Now is when we need to hear it the most, especially with the state of the nation and so little time before elections. He needs to show us what we loved about him before all this bogus fighting between the parties started. If not, we still face the scary fact of McCain/Palin gaining back speed.

which one?? "That one!"

The Huffingtonpost and The Nation had headlines today about McCains reference to Obama as "that one." As if his campaign could not get any lower...
At this point, it seems that anything McCain says slightly off-color, the media is all over it. Probably because of how shady and unprofessional most their campaign has been thus far. They can't accept the fact that they are losing popularity.

Olberman Speaks

Keith Olberman did a special comment last night about Palin's comments on Obama being associated with terrorists. I know many people don't consider Countdown with Keith Olberman to be "real" news, but I still tune in. I believe Olberman says on national television what many, many Americans want to say themselves on TV but obviously can't. I think he also speaks for those who see through Palin's smoke-screen. He also says Palin is sleazy, especially after these comments about Obama being friends with someone from his childhood that might be associated with terrorist groups. It is sleazy, and I find nothing wrong with him saying this on his program. Olberman is right when he says that Palin has no idea what the America people are worried about right now, and neither does McCain. They are too wrapped up in trying to smear Obama that they aren't even addressing the issues anymore.

Quite frankly, I am profoundly confused as to why the McCain ticket is still where it's at in the polls. Huffington Post displays headlines that have Obama leading in the polls, and a lead in Ohio which is an important swing state. The media is not painting the McCain ticket in a postive light, but there are some who are still hard set on voting Republican, simply because they always have.

round 2!

The New York Times warns us that McCain might try to further taint Obama's image at tonights debate due to their fall in the polls. Trying to link him to terrorism now seems to be their main goal to get the attention off their failing campaign and unpopular policies. According to this article, McCain will try to defer from the issues once again!

one last thing

Personally, I think this debate was a lot more interesting and "debate" like than last weeks Presidential debate. At least Palin and Biden looked at each other and acknolwedged the other. Very interesting indeed...

The Debate

Since I wasn't able to watch the debate las tnight, I jumped on NYTimes to watch it, which was helpful since they had the transcript on the side. Here is the link if you want to watch it. I think that although Palin talked better and more confidently than she has in the past interviews, she didn't really answer any of the questoins directly, she kind of went off of what she knew to fill in the blanks in some cases. I was very happy to see Biden in this debate, since like before I said I haven't seen or heard a lot about him because of Palin. I believe he is a fantastic speaker, very confident and you can tell from the answers he gave that he has the EXPERIENCE and knowledge needed to help our country. When you watch the debate and read the transcript, you can easily compare the answers that Palin gave versus Biden. I thought, in fact, Palin was very unprofessional at times: with answers refering to "Joe Six Pack" and other "hockey moms." Ummm...you're not at a PTA meeting Palin. She also completely dodged one question and said: "I might not be answering the question you want me to Gwen, or you Biden, but I'd like to tell you about myself as mayor and governor of Alaska." Especially important is the fact that Palin, when asked to respond to an "attack" Biden made on McCain, Palin said: "no, it's not true, but let me go back to energy, and my experience with that." Hmmm...avoidance? She was trying to sell herself to us over again since she blew it so far. I hope people won't be blinded once again by her glazed over answers.

Most news sources I read said the same thing: Palin didn't crash and burn, but she also didn't give as convincing a debate as Biden did. Such says this article in The Nation. And Washington Post.

Lastly, I think Palin's beliefs on drilling and renewable energy, and climate change, need to be checked and brought to attention by the media which I didn't see a lot of in the articles I read. This is a huge problem that faces our world, not just the nation, and I think she is seriously misled about it.

Gearing up

As the VP candidates gear up for tonights debate, the media does it's job as well to keep us well informed about Palin. It's no surprise now that American people are finding out what she is really like and polls are dropping for the Republican party. This article once again drills the fact into our minds that McCain is 72 and IF, for some reason, he was elected and should happen to conk out, Palin would be on deck. The American people aren't buying that she would be ready for that, and the media isn't either.

My fear is that somehow they will have prepped Palin enough for tonight so that she come across as confident and knowing what she's talking about, and the American people are going to fall for this scam again!! Just because they may have crammed her with info, it doesn't mean she will retain it, or have the necesary experience to use it. We'll see what tonight brings...

One more thought...

After reading Kasey's blog post from Oct. 1, I had another thought. I'm wondering if the media is allowed to basically have a field day with McCain and Palin (moreso Palin) because the climate is right for it. If McCain and Palin were leading in the polls (I don't know how...but theoretically) would the press still be allowed to grill Palin like they have been doing? Would they be allowed to be saying, or doing what they are doing? I feel like this was the same with Bush. At first, after 9/11 and all people generally liked the guy, and now I've even seen some label him as the "worst President in history."
Shouldn't we be allowed to say what we feel even if the climate isn't right for it?

Preparing Palin

I feel like there should be a documentary out about preparing a person in a couple weeks with the knowledge that VP, or President should know! The Huffingtonpost had a funny headline today. It does seem though that McCain is spending much of his time defending Palin's mishaps, and finding ways to make sure it doesn't happen again. I wonder if they realized that picking her would backfire this badly? I believe they felt that during all the hype they could diguise the fact that she didn't have experience and prep her...but it caught up to them. The media caught up to them, or should I say catched on? America is well informed that this debate could prove a lot about whether McCain and Palin ticket will even have a chance!
This article in Washington Post highlights the time before the VP debate, also citing that the debate isn't about the gender issue, and I hope the Republicans won't come off of the debate aruging this point again. Binder doesn't need to lower his standards for Palin, just because she is a woman. If she was picked for VP then she must be a strong, powerful leader and be able to hold her own. Right??

Catch ya!

The medias onto her! The New York Times published this article today about whether or not Sarah Palin is ready for her big test! As we discussed last night, we haven't seen too much of Palin these past weeks, outside of her interview with Couric, since she the McCain camp is cramming information down her throat so she doesn't screw up at the debates. The media already knows this and is not keeping it a secret. After her interviews with Gibson and Couric the media knows as well as the people that Palin doesn't have what is needed to be VP, and possibly President. Ron Carey says: " Thanks to the mainstream media, quite a low expectation has been created for her performance,” said Ron Carey, chairman of Minnesota’s Republican Party. “The style of Sarah Palin is going to amaze people. She is going to be able to amaze people with the substance she is going to deliver.” Um...okay
Some might argue that the media is ripping her apart at this point, but hey...the truth is the truth, and whether or not it's making this woman look bad we need to know about it. Just because she is being briefed about how to handle the debate, does that really means she could execute any of it if she were in office? I know personally that if I "crammed" for a test I could remember the info for the test only...right after it was over, it flew out of my brain like a leaf in the wind. If Palin manages to "remember" everything she is taught for the debate, do we honestly still believe that makes her qualified with NO experience??

The Nation does a nice little article about how McCain is blaming the media for all their unpopularity. Well yes, the media does play a huge role in supporting candidates, but they are only reporting what is true...and maybe adding some comedy (SNl!!) So whats next? The media already doesn't tell us all the truth about issues, so now do they want to censor it even more and only allow questions that the candidates screen?

Debate 1

I watched the debate on CNN last night. They had a weird little thing on the bottom of the screen that had lines depicting the audience reaction: red for Rep., blue for Dem. and greenish for Ind. I couldn't exactly tell if it was accurate since the lines kept swaying all around, but I've never seen something like that before. I had to laugh at all the different reactions the media had to the debate, as presented in the headlines of the hufington post. Some say Obama was distinctly better than McCain, while others critized both. Here we can see the opinions and views of the writers for these news organizations. Washington Post had several thought provoking articles, and this one didn't seem to be too biased in their depiction of what went on at the campaign. They do state that Obama shot McCain down quite a bit about the Iraq war situation, in which McCain indefinitly supported the Bush administration. Did anyone else see McCain's hairline temper perking during this part? He laughed it off to play it safe...

Washington Post also writes an article that they think neither of the candidates really came out "shining." There was no clear advantage over the other.

Here is an article from The Nation that basically said Obama had his chance to take over McCain on issues that he has no clue about: "At other times, though not tonight, Obama has spoken forcefully as the first 21st century candidate---addressing the limits of military force in a world whose central challenges are pandemics, nuclear proliferation, global inequality, and climate change. These are issues which McCain has no clue how to address. He is a man who craves the reassuring reflexes of the early Cold War era, when military power was the appropriate response to any provocation. Tonight, though, at too many key moments, Obama played on McCain's turf." I do think that Obama played it safe at times when he could have blown McCain out of the water with his knowledge. I also didn't like the fact that he was saying let's get out of Iraq and go into Afghanistan. It's like the sequel to the first disaster war. Like the article says, why didn't Obama talk more about what he's going to do HERE, in AMERICA for the people...thats what we need. He has said it before, why did he clamp up last night?

Slate feels pretty much the same way as WashingtonPost...no clear victory!The media seems to be telling us that Obama needs to "kick it up a notch!" (to borrow an Emeril phrase!) if he wants to gain a clear lead over McCain. It shouldn't be that hard...

Debate?

Apparently it's still up in the air if McCain will be at the debate tonight. Of course, he will probably show up last minute. It appears that McCain can't handle many issues at once...but isn't that what a President is supposed to do? If he thinks that postponing the debates will help him get a boost in the polls again, I think he is seriously misled. If anything, this is showing his inability to focus on many pressing issues at once, and his lack of confidence. I also think part of his wanting to stall the election might be because of his ever-so intelligent VP mate. After the interview with Katie Couric, I think it really hit home for a lot of people that this woman truly doesn't know what is going on. How can she possibly debate against Joe Biden, who has years of experience, when she couldn't even give straight answers to Couric? You can't take a crash course in foreign policy, or the economy and expect to be able to make decisions for the country.

I came across this interesting article in The Nation about holding off on the foreign policy debate and making tonights debate solely focused on the economy and bailout. Both parties would have to agree to only discuss this topic, rather than split their time between both important issues. I think many Americans would like to hear what each has to say about the economy right now, since it is distressing.

google article

The article about how the internet is re-shaping how we read and think was an interesting one. Personally, I still find immense joy in reading books. I've always loved reading and the internet hasn't changed that. In fact, although I do like the conveniance the internet offers as far as getting to many sources of information quickly, I find myself annoyed most of the time. I don't like reading lengthy articles online, mostly because there is so much distraction with other links and advertisements on the sides, and I suppose I just find it more comfortable to pick up a book and read so I don't have to keep scrolling down etc. Like mentioned in the article : "They found that people using the sites exhibited “a form of skimming activity,” hopping from one source to another and rarely returning to any source they’d already visited. They typically read no more than one or two pages of an article or book before they would “bounce” out to another site. " I do find myself with little patience, bouncing around like they say.
Additionally, I do think that the internet, and Google are great tools. I know that I have explored certain topics and issues of interest through Google that I might not have otherwise researched at say, the library. Google helps to find information on all spectrums quickly and efficiently.

meanderings

Some interesting coverage on CNN last night with Anderson Cooper. First off, they showed a clip from the interview Sarah Palin had with Katie Couric. (That clip is the whole Part 1 interview, but the first part of it is what was shown on CNN last night) Couric was grilling her on the Wall Street dealings, especially McCains connection, and not surpringsly, Palin stumbled, was even left wordless for a minute, and then repeated the same phrase she had said before. I just had to laugh at what a joke her nomination is. Make sure to watch the ending of the video when Palin jovially states: "I'll try and find some and get back to you on that!"
On the other hand, CNN also did only give us that one clip--so technically someone catching that clip only, and not watching the whole interview, could only conclude that Palin has no clue as to what is going on. In other words, we didn't get the whole story. BUT...nevertheless, Palin didn't know how to answer the questions.

Another juicy tidbit--McCain now wants to pospone the debate and put his campaign on hold until something can be settled about the economy. CNN prefaced this with showing that Obama is leading in some of the key swing states, while McCain is falling behind in the polls. Evidently, CNN seemed to be implying that McCain was stalling the debates to try and gain some of his popularity back. They also said that some believe he is doing it to appear "concerened" and attentive to the economy issues. Personally, I agree with what Obama said in a statement back to McCain: the American people should be allowed to see these debates on Friday so that the issue of the economy can be addressed and plans for it's recovering disscussed--what good will holding off on the debates do?

I think McCain is just quivering in his pants a little bit...

Turning Tables

Well, it appears people, AND the media, are finally knocked back to their senses by the Wall Street crash. Washington Post's headlines today say that Obama has gained a 9 point lead over McCain, since people feel he will have a better grasp at helping the economy. The media has finally (somewhat) stopped their obsession with Palin--polls even show she has lost some support in the past weeks. The whole Wall Street debacle has put Americans back on track, thinking about who will honestly be able to help put our economy together. At least Obama has a better chance than McCain.

Will McCain and Palin duke it out?

So I wonder how this discrepancy between McCain and Palin regarding global warming will play out if they get into office. With all the research that has been done on global climate change and the warming of the planet, which all leads to man-made causes, Palin's denial that it is in fact due to our excessive human ways is scary. McCain still supports legislature that would reduce our carbon footprint and emissions, while Palin still fights against it. She also refused to adapt an Engandered Species act for the polar bears since their habitat is drastically decreasing.

I wonder how the media will cover this in the debates coming up. I hope they will give careful attention to this issue: in other words, I hope this issue doesn't get covered up with all that has happened with the economy crashing (which of course is very important too!). I believe it's important for people to know that McCain and Palin do differ on this problem and what that could mean if they get elected.

Has anyone else noticed how the media always shows Palin somewhat taking charge at the campaign speeches? It seems whenever I'm watching the news, like CBS or NBC, Palin is somehow always in front of McCain, taking over. I wonder how McCain feels taking the backseat. It's as if Palin already thinks she is president. This article struck me because now they are campainging together, on the same stage, how appropriate for Palin in the spotlight. I also think this article again knocks down Sarah Palin, especially on page 2 when they mention: "It was the first time Palin had answered questions from voters since McCain chose her for the ticket, and the campaign could not have found a safer environment.Boisterous, blissful Republicans cheered her every utterance." Not that I would disagree with this statement at all, but it definitly puts the Republicans in the negative light once again.
It definity seems after this crash on Wall Street that people are once again getting back to what this election is about. While Obama offers refreshing ideas about restoring the economy, all McCain was worried about was once again blaming Obama, and democrates for the economic downfall.

hacking

Enough is enough already. I mean, I'm definitly not a Palin supporter, but where is the line drawn? Was it really necessary to hack into her email? People are really just going nuts in this campaign. Part of it I believe is the way our country is right now, and the other part is what we are seeing, reading and listening to from the media that causes this frenzy.

Just the other day I was talking to a friend who is very into politics, and was always an independent, leftist extreme, you might say and now he is in total support of Palin because he believes that the media has completely smeared her. He thinks that she is the only person who is "normal," or "one of us" and that she can relaly bring the change in the white house that is needed. He also gave me an article to read from boston globe that dismissed all the claims made about Palin :that she wanted to ban books, that she wants to go to war with other countries etc. But whose to say that article dismissing the claims is even accurate? What makes him think that the information he found was correct, and everything we've been hearing is not?

Perhaps we simply choose what we want to believe and what we don't. If we like a person( for instance Palin), we'll find a way to either justify her misgivings or find information that dismisses facts (it's always out there).

Although Joe Biden is much more well known than Sarah Palin, I wonder why the media is giving hardly anytime to him. Now that it seems we're moving past the Palin frenzy (hopefully) that has dominated the news, and people are getting back to facts, I think it would be nice if the media gave some time to Biden, for those who don't know him or want to get to know him better.
In the past couple days, maybe even weeks, I've noticed a change in the media...a shift almost to more positive commentary and spotlight on Obama, rather than McCain. I wonder if this change came about because of all the advertisements and bogus comments, or if there is some other underlying reason.

P.S.

One more thing: I don't think it's a bad thing for celebrities to express their opinions about candidates. They are after all Americans, people like us, who also have a view of how this country should be run. And I don't think people would be stupid enough to say: "Oh Matt Damon is supporting X so I'll vote for him because of that."
Then again...


Here's another look at Palin!

I just watched this video of Matt Damon discussing the scary possiblity of Palin becoming president if something should happen to McCain (let's face it...he is 72 already). I haven't seen much of the media on TV discussing this possiblity, outside of the interview with Gibson where he said " are you REALLY ready to possibility take over the presidency if need be?" Obviously she said yes because she's on national television, but if Americans stop and think for a minute, and get over the "excitement" of a woman VP, then maybe they would realize how ridiculous this is. I believe the medias coverage of the VP debates will play a huge role in really showing who Sarah Palin is. At least I hope it does, because we need to be looking at her experience and her policies, not her mothering skills. What I'm wondering is, if even FOX news is fed up with the lies, then why are Americans still supporting Palin/McCain? Do they really think Palin has the experience, and that McCain can bring about the changes this country needs? Or are they simply angry at the way the media is playing around with the election so they are just sticking to their parties roots?

I'm just hoping these upcoming debates turn things around and back to the issues.

To believe or not believe

I came across this interesting article today in The New York Times. The article is very relevant to how people are feeling today. For example, today at work, my co-worker and I were talking about how draining all this political talk/media presentations are. We both agreed that there is just so much going on, and it's so laced with "lies" or falsehoods (as we discussed last night) that it's hard to tell what to believe anymore. The article mentions that the news advertisments that both parties are posting are not going to sway voters the way they think it will...the writer believes it soley comes down to the two debates left before election. With everything that has been happening in the media I would guess many Americans are feeling frustrated and don't know where to turn anymore. Another issue is that the media strategically chooses what to cover and what to leave out...could their coverage and often times "b.s." be defering us from important facts? Probably. Thats why it's important to read/watch ALL news, NOT just mainstream. I find NPR very helpful as well as papers like The Nation.

Speaking of the Nation, you all should read this great editorial about covering what matters in the election, and getting away from all these "trivial issues" like lipstick and pigs! Hopefully I can jump on again later and talk more about this...

Interview with Palin

After watching and reading about the interview Gibson had with Palin, it's very clear that the woman is still on shaky grounds, trying to act confident in her statements, but the truth is, she doesn't have the experience needed (especially with the state our country is in now) to take over a VP position. Not only that, her policies and beliefs are focused more on foreign affairs (wanting to intercept in Georgia, and the whole Iran/Israel debacle.) Why are we trying to go into every country and tell them how to run it, when we don't even know how to run our own country now? We need help here first.

Additionally, instead of focusing on renewable energy sources that we have the means to attain, she wants to instead open up drilling in Alaska preserves. Now, I did a whole semester project on this in my undergraduate studies of Environmental science, and if we open up drilling in Alaska shoreline and wildlife refuge, this not only endangers the animals that have habitat there, but also completely destroys the fragile ecosystem and environment there. But the most important point is that the oil supply would only be enough to last us 6 months, not to mention is would take over a year or more to obtain the oil. We need to be moving away from oil, and on to renewable energy is we want to help stop global warming and climate change.
Here are two good articles explaining the negative effects: NRDC and U.S. Fish and Wildlife of Alaska

Media Bias

My favorite news source is NPR news because they give a more broad look at many issues, not just focusing in on who they want to focus on. For instance, it always amazes me how in every election the mainstream news gives more coverage to certain candidates, others who were running for president were barely heard of, if at all. Some of which I believe had some great ideas and plans for our country (such as Kucinich). However, unless you look at other non-mainstream news sources, many people won't even know who else is running for president. The media definitly shapes the campaign in who they give the most press time/coverage to, and I think that is very unfair.

Seriously?

I don't know if anyone else is getting a little tired of this childish game? Quite frankly, this kind of campaigning is upsetting considering all the issues that need to be addressed in this country today: the unending war, funding for education, healthcare, our environment/renewable energy amongst other things...I seriously hope this is not how one party will win over another-who can throw the better punches and make up the most lies to make the other party look beter? I feel like thats what the Republicans are turning this campaign into.

The New "It" Girl

Ran across this cartoon today of Palin. Does anyone else think it's kind of weird that Palin seemingly came in and just "took over" After all, who really heard anything about her until McCain picked her? In all the media lately it's Palin shaking hands, signing autographs, speaking to the crowd while McCain kind of just takes the back seat. Hmmm...do we have another Bush/Cheney situation?

After reading in the Washington Post today about the supposed increase in McCain supporters due to his picking Palin, I think an important point was mentioned by a Democratic strategic: Obama "needs to make clear again to people why they had deep concerns about John McCain," said a Democratic strategist who declined to be identified so as to speak freely about Obama's strategy. "It is because he represents four more years of Bush's policies on the economy and Iraq. . . . The Palin pick is just so much gauze hiding that. The goal of the Obama campaign must be to pull that away."
I think this is very true. Many people aren't even bothering to look at Palin's history, most are just excited a woman was picked for VP. Another issue that scares me, after watching on MSNBC news last night, was that Palin is claiming that the war in Iraq and drilling offshore for oil are all things that God wants. How can she possibly know what God wants?

Whats important in any election is to look at a candidates history. They can be promising many good changes now, but to take a look back at how they've voted and believed in the past can give a good idea of their TRUE policies.

*One more thing I've noticed: this campaign has literally become like two immature children bickering. One party says this, and the other parts fires something back or twists what the other person said. I think we've had enough lies, let's get down to the real issues that need to be addressed. If you can, watch this video and read the excerpt about a comment Obama made, and the reaction he got from the Republican party!

What do you think?

Testing

Just making sure this works!!

:-)