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!!

:-)