Opps

sorry guys these were the pictures that didn't work for some reason

Politics Turns Chic: Increases Youth Vote

Politics Turn Chic: Increases Youth Vote

Ever since elections have gone on in the United States novelties of some sort have been used to show one’s stance or pride in politicsThere was even a political novelty textile of George Washington to celebrate his second inauguration in 1792 (Price). As elections evolved so did the amount and type of campaign and party merchandise. Campaign buttons became very popular, especially with the invention of photography. There are campaign pins with pictures dating back to Abraham Lincoln’s time. As campaigns entered the 20th century there were more posters, yard signs, pins, stickers, bumper stickers, and even clothing. Political merchandise evolved from promoting awareness to showing your ideas with pride. Recent past presidential candidates have had Halloween masks and action figures modeled after them, as well as their traditional campaign merchandise. Fast forward to the recent 2008 election and campaign and political novelties have been taken to a new level. This past year there has been election day hotel packages and even Democrat and Republican cocktails, fashionable trends more popular within a younger crowd. Political awareness has entered a category usually held by Ugg Boots and North Face Fleeces. Fashion and art was even modeled after the candidates and around the 2008 elections which lured in younger voters. The use of campaign-based novelties through fashion and lifestyle during the 2008 election was successful in generating an increase of new political awareness in the younger demographic of voters.

The 2008 election had the highest voter turnout since 1908 when William Howard Taft ran against William Jennings Bryan, 136.6 million Americans voted resulting in a 64.1% voter turnout (Borenstein). This impressive turnout can be attributed to the number of young voters, ages 18-29, that cast their ballot during the primaries. The young vote jumped as high as 133% in Iowa, 134% in Georgia, and 301% in Texas; doubling overall for the entire country (Rock The Vote). As a woman who has seen many elections, 78-year-old Norma Storms remarked, “I have never seen anything like this in all my born days, I’m just astounded” (Borenstein). Rock The Vote, an organization encouraging young people to register and vote since 1992, had a hand in bringing attention to the importance of young people exercising their rights as American citizens. Heather Smith, director of Rock The Vote, said “Young voters have dispelled the notion of an apathetic generation and proved the pundits, reporters, and political parties wrong by voting in record numbers [on November 4th]. The Millennial generation is making their mark on politics and shaping our future” (Borenstein). Such online sites as Facebook and Myspace encouraged voting with election day opening screens and political groups a viewer could join. One event hosted by Facebook was “Election Day: Vote on November Fourth,” 2.4 million Facebook members replied that they would be attending, most of them under the age of 29 (Facebook). Theses websites have catered to a younger crowd who has grown up with the internet and knows it well. Since millions of people log on to Facebook or the internet in general everyday, there was a constant reminder to vote. Seeing reminders like these on forums, blogs, or social networking sites impacted young voters the best because most of them are online everyday. This online lifestyle and use of the computer where information is at everyone’s fingertips has given a new definition to political awareness. Young people especially who have been using computers since kindergarten were influenced tremendously by the surge of voter encouragement online.

This election was groundbreaking as a whole, Hillary Clinton came close to getting the Democratic nomination for President, Sarah Palin, a little-known governor from Alaska received the nomination for Republican Vice Presidential candidate, and we now have a biracial President Elect ready to take over the White House in January. This wave of change reflected the transition that was observed in the young vote. A record 23 million young voters age 18-29 cast their ballot on election day, representing 18% of the electorate vote (Davies). The young vote certainly impacted the 2008 election. This historical record can be accredited to the trend that made voting appear to be the “cool” and “in” thing to do. Young people have always been attracted to “change,” something different from what their parents want. This rebellious ideal of youth in America goes back to the 1950’s with the Beats generation and continued through the 1960’s and 1970’s with the Hippie and Flower Child ages. Something new and different, a fresh face of change will usually attract the youth to help the cause because they are hopeful that they can make a difference. This type of hopeful lifestyle that many younger people lead can be attributed to the young voter turnout this election season that was in reaction to the turmoil of the past 8 years.

 

But this election was not just different in the political sense, it also made an impact in the fashion world. And when one thinks of who is up to date with the newest fashion and popular culture, who better than America’s youth. This was evident in the amount of apparel and novelties bought by college students this election season. Ashley Niedringhaus, a student at Marquette University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, wrote an article for her school newspaper supporting the idea that students had a sense of political awareness and pride sporting their election gear. Many young adults not only saw this election as a political duty of theirs, but as a stylish action like buying jeans at a popular store. “If people wear the brand then it becomes a living entity. When it is embraced in someone’s lifestyle it becomes more real,” Niedringhaus quoted from Jean Grow, an assistant professor of Advertising and Public Relations at the University. Grow went on to say that “it’s exciting to see markets embracing social consciousness at a political level” and that students wearing this election apparel have contributed to the increased interest in voting (Niedringhaus). 

In terms of fashion and apparel, the market boomed. Obama and McCain sold their own campaign apparel, making it easy for many to show who they supported without speaking a word. Not just candidates sold campaign items though, brand name clothing stores jumped on the band wagon as well. Stored like Urban Outfitters, American Eagle, GAP, and even the more high end Juicy Couture all sold political t-shirts. These shirts encouraged people to go out and exercise their right as American citizens. American Eagle, a store marketed specifically towards high school and college students, came out with a “VOTE: Declare Yourself” t-shirt early in the primary season. Political garb from the brands and candidates could be found at the stores or online. And the people that usually shop online and at such stores are indeed a younger crowd. Not only could the youth of America easily attain these products but they could show off their opinions simply as well. Just like many young people like to show off the brand of clothing they wear, many were showing off which “brand” of president they wanted in just as fashionable a way. This election and the voting process came to be seen as a quasi-fashion statement for the youth of America.  

Not only was their fashionable apparel being sold, stores had events based around the election. Kate Spade, Lucky Brand Jeans, and Bluefly.com all had election day discounts (Dodes). The high end French Connection also had a 15% discount for registered voters, as their Chief Executive, Andrea Hyde, stated, “During these difficult times this is about being able to give back and encouraging people to vote. We are making a statement about freedom of expression - that’s what fashion is all about.” These sales compare with Labor Day and Presidents Day sales. Many of these stores are in the mall and many young people are in the mall shopping weekly. Young adults were bound to see these sales and walk in these stores. Once they bought something they remembered why they got a discount in the first place. Being that the election was the reason they saved money it became important.  Election Day has come to be seen as a kind of momentous holiday to be celebrated, and with sales in honor of it, election day definitely lured young shoppers in. 

Fashion was not the only market attracting young voters, items such as coffee, soda, and even pinatas had the election in mind and were surely aimed at a younger crowd. Many items were marketed towards young adults, such as the merchandise sold by CafePress.com. Marc Cowlin, CafePress.com’s spokesman, said that the majority of sales was from a younger demographic (MSNBC.com). Some election merchandise evolved out of items young people buy every day. Jones Soda manufactured 6-packs of political cola. The “Pure McCain Cola” was outsold by the Obama “Yes We Can Cola” by almost a thousand (The Wall Street Journal). Jones Soda is packaged with clear bottles, labels with fun pictures, and quirky soda names. The difference between Jones Soda that just an everyday Coca-Cola is its fun factor. No one buys their soda just because they need caffeine they buy it because it is fun to drink. According to the “Jones Soda Company Profile” Jones has been sold “in some truly unique venues, such as skate, surf and snowboarding shops, tattoo and piercing parlors, as well as in individual fashion stores and national retail clothing and music stores,” all hangouts of teens and young adults in their twenties (Jones: Pure Cane Soda). For the young crowd over 21 there were even sophisticated political cocktails like Maverick Margaritas and Obamaretto Sours (Miles). These fun drinks attracted the more adventurous and hip, making young people a perfect target group. But one item definitely geared towards a younger crowd was the political condoms from practicesafepolicy.com. Obama condoms said “Who Says Experience is Necessary” and McCain condoms said “Old But Not Expired,” each type selling over twenty thousand (The Wall Street Journal). Usually safe sex campaigns are aimed at young, unmarried sexually active adults. The Practice Safe Policy Obama and McCain condoms were just a hilarious, yet useful political joke made by 26-year-old Benjamin Sherman. Sherman being of a young age just proves that young people can get involved and influence others to be aware of politics, even if it is in a light-hearted way. These products aimed at a younger crowd made the election a little more fun and possibly attracted some new voters previously unconcerned.

These novelties, although popular right now with young people, may also serve as nostalgic keepsakes. A website called westwing.com featured political novelties such as Obama bobble-heads. The President of the company Jeffrey Renolds, said “...our democracy and our cherished freedoms should be an immense source of pride for all Americans. We intend to foster and deepen that pride through our...White House and presidential memorablilia...” (McInerny). Unfortunately sometimes the younger demographic is too impressionable and just does what is popular or trendy at the time, buying these political novelties and voting for who is most favored. Stacie Barton, a student at the University of Illinois, said that “People think its cool to be a Democrat or to vote for Obama. A lot of my (classmates) who don’t pay attention to politics just stick with whoever is popular” (MSNBC.com). Obama has also represented the change young people have wanted to see though. He is the epitome of everything President George W. Bush is not. Obama promised an end to the war in Iraq, universal health care, and an end to the financial crisis; all issues that concern the young adults of today. These concerns are held with great pride too. This is why the popularity of all these political products and pushed the youth vote forward. These products not only look “cool,” they symbolize a sense of pride in one’s ideas and in their country.

After all the political marketing put into the products our 44th president was chosen on November 4th, former Senator of Illinois and President Elect Barack Obama. All the special political offers stopped and the political merchandise went on sale 50% off. All the “Rock the Vote” shirts will have to be put away for 4 years. But this new type of lifestyle and pride of purchasing something to show your support changed the atmosphere of many elections to come. Who knows what else could be done in the future? One thing is for sure, the youth of America will never lose pride for their country. Under all the apparel and political bumper stickers the young adults that are the future of America are patriotic and hopeful. No matter what as long as they keep voting it does not matter what they buy. In the end, they want the best man (or woman) for the job and that will happen whether or not they get a free grande coffee at Starbucks on election day.

Underneath the Drama and Laughter

Everyone,
I didn't upload any videos, but the video links are embedded into some of the words, so watch them as you please! Enjoy!

Underneath the Drama and Laughter

In 1960, the first televised Presidential debate took place and no one expected image to have such a dramatic impact on the voters. As the cameras focused on Nixon’s weak and ghost-like visage, the audience watching quickly transferred their preference to Kennedy, who spoke steadily and gracefully. Currently, the media does much more than just play with camera angles. It also writes controversial articles and captures photos of embarrassing moments. The purpose of this is not only to inform the viewers of America’s president, but also to further their profit and accumulate a larger audience, thus creating a Hollywood feel to the news. Therefore, media apathetically harps over those who reside in the White House in an attempt to entertain their audience and to survive in their industry. Although the media does focus on some unimportant aspects of political life, it still also incorporates important issues in the comical and dramatic materials they create. If people look more closely, the satire created by the media holds a deeper meaning than just a form of entertainment. Over the past few years, the media covered important political scandals and politicians’ embarrassing characteristics, treating them as entertainment, thus creating a feeling of satire that, though it entertains, also informs.

During this year’s election, the media attempted to uncover mistakes in Barack Obama’s campaign to present the Democratic party’s flaws to the public. Nevertheless, Obama, whose skin color kept many repudiated and fearful critics from cracking jokes at his expense, rarely received criticism by the media. Furthermore, his well oiled campaign machine ran smoothly, causing very little problems en route to the election. Only once did the media find material to embarrass Obama with, which was when Obama stated “it’s not surprising then that they [Pennsylvanians] get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations” (Denny). Almost overnight, the media turned this faux pas into a huge mistake. He was called elitist, and pictures like this

began to surface everywhere (Helsing). The controversy created by the media backfired, however, as many African Americans, including Dr. Robert Wilson, interpreted this as a breakthrough for their own race. Dr. Wilson even announced that “Dr. King’s dream is now a reality” (Paddy). Interview of Dr. Wilson Ironically, Obama placed second to Hillary in the Pennsylvanian primaries with 1,046,220 votes, thereby ending the controversy (Pennsylvania Primary Results). Furthermore, his running mate, Biden, hardly ever got in from under the media’s critical eye. As a matter of fact, news on Biden was so low that Jay Leno joked, “Actually, Joe Biden looked pretty good. In fact, Joe's popularity has gone from 1% to 2% last week to 3% today. At this rate, he could win the nomination by the year 2032” (Kurtzman Biden Jokes). Though the press tried to find major flaws in Obama’s campaign and only succeeded slightly, whereas McCain’s campaign received more than its fair share of taunting and bad press from the media.

The media exaggerated aspects of John McCain’s age and Sarah Palin’s experience and turned important issues into deciding factors for many voters. Contrary to the young and hopeful Barack Obama, John McCain appeared old and conservative. As McCain himself said, “I am older than dirt and have more scars than Frankenstein” (Simon). The initial concern of many American voters was that McCain would be unable to carry out his term, and the media quickly took charge of this fear. The media delved into this concern and discovered his medial history was over 1,500 pages long, including both medical and psychiatric records. On top of that, “he has had malignant melanoma, the most invasive and dangerous form of skin cancer” (Simon). As the topic of McCain’s health grew more popular each passing day, the media, including negative ad campaigning from the Democratic Party, began touching on the aspect of McCain’s health. Many, like Conan O’Brien, made fun of his lifespan with jokes such as, “Earlier today, John McCain released 1,200 pages of his medical records. Or, as his doctor calls it, Chapter One.” while others, such as Craig Ferguson, tease him about his age with, “John McCain has been accused of stealing policy ideas from Wikipedia, which is ridiculous. Everybody knows McCain doesn't know how to use the Internet, so how could you even accuse him of that?” (Kurtzman McCain Jokes). These claims about McCain describe him as outdated and ancient and purposefully remind the audience to question McCain’s ability to perform and excel as president of the United States. Furthermore, the media depicted McCain as a follower, or in this case, a pet of President Bush’s policies. (Kurtzman)

This is a highly exaggerated picture; however, the funny caricature proves slightly true. McCain has many similar stances with President Bush, for example,

“on big-ticket issues — the economy, support for continuing the Iraq war, health care — his stances are indeed similar to Mr. Bush’s brand of conservatism. Mr. McCain’s positions are nearly identical to the president’s on abortion and the types of judges he says he would appoint to the courts” (Bumiller).

Additionally, “acccording to Congressional Quarterly's Voting Studies, in 2007 McCain voted in line with the president's position 95 percent of the time, the highest percentage rate for McCain since Bush took office, and voted in line with his party 90 percent of the time” (Kolawole). There is very little doubt that McCain has many similarities with the current President of the United States. Through these comical portrayals of McCain, the media alerts the viewer to the truth behind McCain’s relationship with President Bush. This knowledge had the power to affect whether the audience wanted McCain in office and therefore creating a term similar to President Bush’s two terms. These satirical representations of McCain are skewed, but underneath their comedy and criticism lay important messages.

Although McCain’s conservative opinions serve as a form of entertainment for the masses, they also hint at the public’s concern about McCain’s increasing age and their other worry that Palin might need to substitute him as president. As Jay Leno once said, “Sarah Palin and McCain are a good pair. She's pro-life and he's clinging to life” (Kurtzman McCain Jokes). Although McCain was the original “maverick,” Palin soon took on that title to identify herself as part of the campaign. However, as Palin criticized the style of the Republican campaign and stated her differences in stances with McCain, the title backfired as she attempted to go ‘rogue’ and “to look out for her own future now that the Republican presidential nominee's prospects are in doubt” (Silva).

(Kurtzman)

The cartoon shows Palin trying to separate herself from McCain by decorating her year while leaving McCain’s drab. Although this is just a silly distinction in the cartoon, it represents real life worries and gives valuable insights into Palin as a politician. If McCain could not continue his term and she were to replace him, the government’s stances would most likely change due to the two politicians’ differences on issues such as gay marriage and the style of the 2008 campaign. The thought of the responsibilities that Palin would have faced in the White House echo important questions: is she ready to take on the White House with such a large family and can she articulate what is happening in the world when she becomes vice president and even possibly president? Jimmy Kimmel jokingly asks, “How [is she] going to be the vice president of the United States with five kids to take care of? She's got a four-month-old of her own, she's about to become a grandmother, and she's partnered with John McCain. How many diapers can one woman possibly change?” (Kurtzman McCain Jokes). The joke sounds chauvinistic and exaggerated, yet its extremism acts as a reminder of the dramatic changes that might have ensued if Palin had the chance to replace McCain as president.

Apart from questioning her ability to handle the responsibility of the Presidency, the media made fun of Palin’s inexperience. Many television shows and articles ridiculed her through her lack of finesse and knowledge in interviews. On Saturday Night Live, the satirical television series’ regular, Tina Fey, exaggerated Sarah Palin’s faults, and the comparison between the genuine and fictional politican began to blur when the real Sarah Palin went on SNL. The similarities in appearances were shocking, and after comparing the real and fake Sarah Palin through interviews and finally through SNL, the resemblance was all too real. The stuttering, stumbling and repeating of Republican catchphrases from both versions of Sarah Palin’s interview with Katie Couric was almost identical and maliciously depicted a potential vice president. The media’s depictions of Sarah Palin showed the public how the satire was not far from the truth.

President George W. Bush, in all his eight years of office, also bore the brunt of massive amounts of issue-based satire and criticism from the media. For two terms the media criticized George Bush endlessly for the way he handled Iraq, the disaster of Katrina, and for his difficulty in speaking to the public. Also, as President Bush became the most unpopular president of all time where “seventy-six percent of those questioned in the poll disapprove of how he is handling his job.” the amount of material disapproving of Bush increased multifold (Steinhauser). In 2008, there was even a movie called “W”, the sole purpose of which was to expand the criticism of President Bush’s leadership onto film. The movie attacks his contribution towards the Bush legacy as well as his ineffective policies on the Iraq war. Although these descriptions may seem ruthless and are not all well deserved, they indicate the poor state of affairs in which Bush will leave America. Currently, many consider Bush wrong for the job as President, which is evident from the wide popularity of the movie “W,” which “came in fourth place with an estimated $10.5 million” after its release (Mallas). In the movie, Oliver Stone portrays George W. Bush as someone who never wanted to become president; also in “W,” Bush’s failure to account for his claim of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq frustrates the world as well as himself. Furthermore, parodies of the Iraq war such as iRack, Mad TV’s interpretation of Bush’s policies in Iraq, gained wide popularity soon after they came out. These are only a few of billions of satirical skits that run throughout the media.

The spoofs deeply criticize Bush’s actions while in office and represent the disappointment and anger felt by most of Americans in regard to the policies of the last few years. The criticism in iRack targets Bush’s decision to initiate the Iraq war. In the skit, the creator of Apple computers imitates George Bush, highlighting his disregard for the Americans arguing that. “the iRack looks unstable…the iRack looks like something we shouldn’t be involved in” clearly parallels American concerns in the real world (Ra1ntje). Political jokes and renditions of George Bush may induce laughter, yet they capture the opinion and voices of the American people.

The media’s political scrutiny of Bill Clinton was harsh, but focused on one main issue: all might have gone smoothly for former President Bill Clinton had the media not discovered his affair with Monica Lewinsky. The scandal became a huge topic for the press and lasted quite some time; longer, even than his term. The fact that Hillary Clinton campaigned in the 2008 elections, ensured that the jokes about her husband still survive, as demonstrated by this jibe made by Jay Leno: “There's a lot of pressure on Barack Obama to put Hillary on the ticket. Even his advisers are telling him that Hillary can deliver the woman vote. And, of course, Bill can deliver the other woman vote. So between the two of them, that's, you know, that's a lot of women.” (Kurtzman Clinton Jokes). When news of the affair reached the media, Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky jokes began to surface immediately. The media’s constant berating of and comments on Bill Clinton’s affair became an important ethical appeal. The idea was that the president should be a person to respect and emulate. The realization that such a role model purposefully deceived his country was saddening and worrisome. Constant jokes about Bill Clinton, like the one below (McKee)

shook the people’s belief in everything else the President had to say. Bill Clinton’s relationship with Monica Lewinsky and possible sexual assault of Paula Jones are both moral injustices that the media rightfully portrayed as inappropriate. The media’s extensive coverage of the scandal eventually lead to an attempt by the government on December 11 and 12, the Committee attempted to impeach Bill Clinton using the evidence pertaining to the Paula Jones case and to his relationship with Monica Lewinsky (Clinton Impeachment). This attempt at impeachment showed just how seriously Clinton’s mistake was taken, since there has only been one other presidential impeachment. In this case, the media’s humiliation of the President was not only entertaining, but an important form of ethical appeal to the values of the American public.

Overall, the media’s information on past politicians is like a reverse blade: two different sides, each holds a different purpose. On the sharp side, the information hones in on crucial events that relate to the White House and fulfills its ideological purpose to inform its viewers of what is currently important in the political world. On the dull side, the information bluntly exhibits hilarious and embarrassing moments that serve as a major source of entertainment. However, both sides act as a single weapon and performs its duty as it cuts into the heart of controversy and issues in politics. Armed correctly, the media can inform the public about important issues while simultaneously entertaining them as well. One might feel empathetic towards politicians whom the media attacked and humiliated, yet the dramatic events that the media point out will always make those politicians more memorable in the present and also in history.

Final Project

Jacob Brown
English 101: Political Rhetorics
Ms. Matthews
December 4, 2008

Sarah Palin Lost the Election

On November 4th, voters all over America cast their ballots and finally put an end to this historic election. Barack Obama was elected to be the next president of the United States with a commanding 365 to 173 electoral victory as well as 53% of the popular vote (RCP). As the Republicans reflect upon their defeat, they must consider which factors were most influential in causing their loss. The most obvious factor seems to be the economy, with 62% of Americans citing it as the most important issue in deciding their vote (Kuhn). But the McCain campaign spoiled its chances for victory nearly a month before Wall Street crashed. Even before the economic crisis took hold of the campaign, the selection of Sarah Palin as vice president lost the McCain campaign the election because she alienated key voter constituencies, brought into question McCain’s judgment, and undermined the campaign’s critiques of Barack Obama’s inexperience and his far-left political ideology.
The economic crisis did play an important role in the Democrats’ impressive margin of victory, but the selection of Sarah Palin was what first lost the McCain campaign the election. As previously stated, 62% of Americans said the economy was the most important issue in the campaign. Concern about their financial livelihood caused many voters to vote Democratic. Voters thought Obama could better handle the economic crisis than McCain, and this caused much of the huge disparity in the election results. But concern over the selection of Palin caused McCain’s numbers to begin to fall before the economic crisis was brought to center stage. When Palin was initially introduced on August 30th as the Republican nominee for vice president, her polling numbers were incredibly high, and it appeared that she was a boon for the McCain campaign. She provided the McCain campaign with a six-point convention bounce, which provided McCain with his first lead of the presidential campaign, by a margin of 49% to 44% (“Gallup Daily: McCain’s Bounce Gives Him 5-Point Lead”). But his numbers dropped by mid-September, as the public got a chance to examine Palin. By September 15th, the day before Wall Street plummeted, McCain’s lead had decreased to two percentage points, well within the margin of error (“Gallup Daily: Race Stabilizes with McCain up by Two”). Once the hype died down and voters were given time to evaluate Palin as a vice presidential candidate, it became clear just how unqualified she was and how dangerous her selection would prove for the Republican ticket. Once the voters came to these realizations, they were far less likely to vote for the Republican ticket. The damage that Palin caused to the McCain campaign was so great that she lost them the election before the economic crisis became the focal point of the campaign.
Sarah Palin dramatically damaged the Republican ticket by alienating key voting groups. Moderates were the first voters that she drove from the McCain campaign, because her far-right conservative views scared them. Palin holds views that many moderates do not share. She does not believe the Constitution offers an inherent right to privacy. She believes abortion should be illegal even if the mother was raped. Her views regarding education are even more frightening to many moderates. She does not believe in evolution, and she advocated for creationism to be taught in schools. Furthermore, when she was the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, she probed the possibility of banning certain books from the city library (“Sarah Palin on the Issues”). These conservative stances greatly differ from those of moderate voters. Moderate voters hold centrist positions between the liberal and conservative ends of the political spectrum. They do not support views that are either too far left or right (Callimachus). In the past, McCain has been popular with moderates, and the McCain campaign tried to capitalize on this popularity and position itself as the ticket for moderates. However, Palin’s political views are much too far to the right to give any credibility to this argument. In fact, her views are so far from the center that moderates overwhelmingly did not support the Republican ticket. Exit polls reported that moderates favored Obama 60% to 39%. This support was so valuable because 44% of the electorate classified themselves as “moderate” (Selzer). They worried that Palin would push McCain away from the center. This concern dearly cost the McCain campaign on Election Day.
Besides scaring off moderates, Palin further hurt the chances of the Republican ticket by estranging women voters. Through the selection of Palin, the McCain campaign made a concerted effort to appeal to women voters. They specifically reached out to discontented Hillary Clinton supporters still angered by perceived sexism during the Democratic primaries. However, their efforts backfired. Obama won a strong majority of women voters in the election; 55% percent of women voters backed Obama versus just 43% for McCain. Also, exit polls show that 84% of Democrats who supported Hilary Clinton in the primaries voted for Obama in the general election (“Exit Polls: Age v. Race”). Her unpopularity with women is a result of her stances on crucial women’s rights issues. As mentioned before, Palin is adamantly pro-life, even in cases of rape or incest (“Sarah Palin on the Issues”). Many women disagree with her on this issue. A Gallup tracking poll released on September 3rd found that 50% of women are pro-choice and only 43% are pro-life. Among independent women voters, 51% claim to be pro-choice while just 40% say they are pro-life. Palin’s view on another important women’s issue, sex education, also puts her in conflict with the majority of women voters. Sixty-four percent of women say that “it is extremely or very important for Congress and the next administration to address policies that will help prevent unintended pregnancies by expanding access to contraceptives and comprehensive sex education” (“Poll: Women Pessimistic on Economy, Worried About Future”). Sarah Palin opposes any sex education besides teaching abstinence. She even cut federal funding for teenage mothers in Alaska (Kane). Palin’s views are out of the mainstream when it comes to issues important to women. Her disagreement with many women on these key issues persuaded many women against casting a Republican vote. This disagreement was especially damaging because women made up 53% of the electorate (Aleccia).
Although they are a less sizable voting group than women voters, Jewish voters are still an influential voting block. Palin’s conservative Christian views disaffected Jewish voters, further hurting the Republican ticket on Election Day. Jewish voters were especially important in the state of Florida. Florida was a key swing state in this election, and Jewish voters made up 5% of the voting population in the state (Liasson). As of October 23rd, Jewish voters favored Obama over McCain 74% to 22% (“Obama Winning Over the Jewish Vote”). These numbers increased dramatically since last August, largely in response to the McCain campaign’s selection of Palin. 57% of Jews disapproved of her selection, and Jewish voters began to move towards Obama around the time the McCain campaign announced Palin as their vice presidential nominee (Porter). On Election Day, 78% of Jewish voters voted for Obama and only 21% voted for McCain (Krieger). Obama initially had trouble wooing Jewish voters because they worried about his stance towards Israel. The McCain campaign played up this fear in an attempt to steal Jewish votes from the Obama campaign. However, the selection of Palin, who has no experience on Israel whatsoever, weakened this effort. Furthermore, Jews fret about her strong Christian values, and how they would play out in a McCain presidency. They do not want her Christian values affecting her policy decisions. These worries caused the vast majority of Jewish voters to vote for Obama, killing McCain’s chances in Florida and other key states.
Far more than her alienation of Jewish voters, the fact that Palin does not appeal to young voters hurt the Republican ticket the most. Young voters voted in greater numbers in this election than any previous one. Obama’s youth and idealistic message excited young voters across the country. In this election, 18% of all voters were below the age of 30. Youth turnout rose to 52% with 23 million young voters. 3.4 million more young people voted in this presidential election than in the 2004 presidential election. Moreover, the increase in young voters was responsible for 60% of the overall increase in voter turnout (“Youth Turnout Rate Rises to at Least 52%”). The McCain campaign hoped to lure young voters to the Republican ticket through the selection of Palin for vice president. She is 44 years old, making her the youngest figure in this presidential campaign. Despite her relative youth, she is unpopular with many young voters. A poll published by Harvard University on October 22nd reports that 40% of young voters were less likely to vote for McCain because of Palin. Only 25% of young voters said that the selection of Palin made them more likely to vote for McCain. Palin was unpopular with young voters for a number of reasons. First, young voters tend to be more liberal, and Palin is a staunch conservative. Also, many young voters saw the selection of Palin as a ploy to draw women voters to the Republican ticket, which makes them untrusting of the McCain campaign. They saw Palin as unqualified and unprepared to be vice president (“Most Young Voters Shocked by McCain’s Palin Pick”). On Election Day, 68% of young voters voted for Obama and only 30% voted for McCain (“Exit Polls: Obama Wins Big Among Young, Minorities”). As a record number of young voters went to the polls on Election Day, their disapproval of Palin swayed their votes and marred McCain’s chances.
Besides alienating numerous voting groups, Palin further cost McCain votes because she caused many Americans to question McCain’s judgment. Exit polls showed that 60% of voters believed Palin to unqualified for the position of vice president (Turley). Voters’ opinions of her were shaped through such public disasters as her interview on CBS with Katie Couric. During the interview, she unsuccessfully struggled to hide her lack of knowledge about foreign policy and other important issues. On one of the more often replayed clips from the interview, she responded to a question from Couric on what books and periodicals shaped her views with, “Oh, all of them” ("Interview With Katie Couric"). Her incompetence caused many to wonder how McCain could be so irresponsible as to pick her as his running mate. McCain would have been the oldest first term president ever, and - when one takes into account his considerable health problems - the possibility of him dying in office was realistic. It was therefore vital that he select a vice president who could capably assume the office of the president in the event of his death. Instead, he chose Palin, a choice that many voters on both sides of the political spectrum viewed as “reckless” (“Reckless Palin Choice Comes under Attack – This Time from Conservatives"). This perceived recklessness cast doubt over McCain’s overall judgment and made many voters uneasy about a McCain presidency, which in turn made them less likely to vote for the Republican ticket.

Watch CBS Videos Online
These statistics illustrating Palin’s influence on the election are ample evidence of her negative impact on the McCain campaign. Her unpopularity with key voting groups cost the McCain necessary support. She also brought into question McCain’s judgment because she was viewed as unqualified to assume the presidency, should he die in office. But she also strategically damaged the McCain campaign because she undermined the Republicans’ most potent criticisms of Obama: his inexperience and his far-left ideology.
The former criticism especially dogged Obama from the beginning of his presidential run. For the entire Democratic primary season, critics hammered away at Obama’s inexperience. His primary rival, Hillary Clinton continually blasted him as “not ready to lead.” Even Joe Biden, Obama’s vice president, claimed Obama was too inexperienced to be president (“Obama Not Ready to Lead”). After he secured the Democratic nomination, he was attacked by an onslaught of Republican critics who decried his inexperience and idealistic naiveté. Compared to McCain, a war veteran with a long history in the United States Senate, Obama’s paltry legislative experience was almost embarrassing. The McCain campaign could have capitalized on this enormous experience gap, but the selection of Palin for vice president drained the force from this argument. Palin possessed arguably less political experience than Obama, and she did not make up for it – as he did – by displaying real political competence in debates, speeches, and interviews. Without their most powerful weapon, the McCain campaign was dreadfully weakened and had little ammunition left with which to attack Obama.
Another strong argument against Obama that seemed to gain some traction before Palin undermined it was criticism of his far-left ideology. In 2007, Obama possessed the most liberal voting record in the Senate (Friel, Cohen, and Victor). The Republican Party attempted to brand Obama as dangerously liberal in order to make voters afraid of electing him. This strategy might have been more effective if Palin’s own extreme views did not undercut it. Palin is extremely conservative and her far-right ideology made voters just as uneasy as Obama’s far-left ideology did. Palin deprived the McCain campaign of another potentially effective line of attack, and they were left with fewer and weaker credible angles with which to assail Obama’s candidacy. This lack of strategic options left McCain with an incredibly difficult path to victory and tremendously hurt his chances.
No matter what one’s opinion of her, Sarah Palin was a monstrous force in this momentous election. She initially provided the McCain campaign with a boost in he polls and appeared to be a politically brilliant choice for vice president. However, she ultimately cost John McCain the election because she lost him the votes of several essential voting groups, caused people to question his judgment in selecting her, and glaringly undermined the Republicans most effective criticisms of Barack Obama. Yes, the economic crisis took the election out of the candidates’ hands, resulting in a massive victory for Obama. But at that point the election was already lost for the Republicans. The selection of Palin ruined their chances. Ironically, Palin’s future may still be bright. Depending on whom one asks, she is either the future of the Republican Party or merely an embarrassing footnote in presidential campaign politics. She is quite popular with the conservative Republican base and there is a real possibility that they might nominate her to challenge Obama in 2012. It is too far ahead to predict for certain, but Palin is certainly a key person to watch on the political scene over the next four years.

The Media Machine

Desmond Pennamon

November 27, 2008

Final Project

The Media Machine

Now that all the votes are counted and the 2008 presidential election is finally determined, there are many aspects of the election that can be viewed in retrospect to the current outcome. One of the fascinating areas is the media’s role. The media played an unprecedented role in the 2008 election. TV shows and the news were able to showcase the candidates to a large majority of the America voting population in unprecedented facets. Since much of the registered voters were able to follow and participate in this election, the voter turnout increased to 1.5 percentage points over the 60.1% turnout rate of 2004 (McDonald, par. 1). This increased voter turnout is attributed to the fact that the media served as a medium to accrue millions of voters. T.V. shows and news networks catered to millions of voters by engaging the young and/or uninformed voters, showcasing the character of candidates, and presenting their own political biases to the impressionable American public.

The youth’s vote became a very crucial lynchpin in determining the victor in the 2008 election. As a result, candidates re-evaluated how they presented themselves in order to acquire as many voters as possible. More and more young voters took an interest in the political system due to the prospect of a fresh, new, young America. This new image was propagated through T.V. shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. These shows offer their own satirical spin to news coverage. They take a commanding presence amongst voters between the ages of 18-29. Many of these young voters are not politically apt nor do they want to associate themselves with politics as usual. For these reasons, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report give young voters news in an appealing and unconventional manner. Some may argue that these shows lack factual news material and as a result cannot be considered a true news source. Though the overall goal of these shows is comedy, they broadcast a considerable amount of substantive news to young and/or uninformed viewers. A recent study from Indian University concluded that the real news coverage on shows like The Daily Show “is just as substantive as traditional news programs like World News Tonight and the CBS Evening News” (Bangeman, par. 1). Professor Fox, the Professor of Telecommunications at Indiana University, was noted as saying "It is clearly a humor show, first and foremost, but there is some substance on there, and in some cases, like John Edwards announcing his candidacy, the news is made on the show. You have real newsmakers coming on, and yes, sometimes the banter and questions get a little silly, but there is also substantive dialogue going on … It's a legitimate source of news” (Indian University, par. 6). Professor Fox continued her research by actually analyzing the quantitative amount of substance within a Daily Show broadcast as opposed to other main stream news sources. Her findings were intriguing in that “the proportion of stories per half hour program devoted to the election campaign was greater in The Daily Show" (Indian University, par. 11). Even more remarkable was the fact that regular viewers of The Daily Show were actually more politically informed than those viewers of only conventional news sources. Viewers of The Daily Show tended to be more knowledgeable about news than audiences of other news sources. Approximately 54% of The Daily Show viewers scored high in a political knowledge test, followed by Jim Lehrer's program at 53% and Bill O'Reilly's program at 51% (Pew Research). These figures show how the viewers of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are getting sound informative news as other news sources while marinating humor in every broadcast. With this balance of humor and news, such shows produce millions of eager and informed voters

The media has allotted music and entertainment to become a large medium to further political awareness. Organizations such as P-Diddy’s “Vote or Die” Campaign and the Los Angeles based “Rock the Vote” successfully engaged the youth in the political process by incorporating the entertainment community and youth culture into its activities (Vargas, par.5). This is yet another facet of the media which is attracting mass numbers of potential voters. The infusion of entertainment with actual political foundations generates a wider basis from which political agendas can be advocated. Saturday Night Live was able to effectively use such an infusion in this year’s election as well. Every major candidate in this year’s presidential race made special guest appearances of the highly popular Saturday night broadcast. The only exception seemed to be Joe Biden who never made a public appearance on the primetime show. Saturday Night Live is a show with millions of impressionable viewers; the brief political sketches can have profound effects on how the candidates are perceived by the millions of American viewers.

Though important, youthful and/or uninformed voters do not make up the entire American voting populace. This year’s election called for a more emotional approach which focused on the character of the candidates. The co-founder and Executive Editor of RealClearPolitics.com, Tom Bevan, noted that this election will be less about the issues than ever before (Bevan, par. 1). This year, much of the American public cast their votes based on how they viewed candidates and not necessarily how the candidates proposed confronting/solving issues. The media showcased the character of these candidates in a way that pushed them into the forefront up the public’s conscience. Diane Sawyer’s documentary, A “Portrait of a President”, looks into the lives of presidential candidates Barrack Obama and John McCain. The documentary delves into the early years of both candidates lives and allows the viewers to discover “who” the candidates are. The viewer sees how these two candidates, born 25 years apart and coming from extremely different backgrounds could share such similar careers marked by ambition and impatience, yet both seem to wield their own unique biographies to “claim a connection with the heart of vast America” (Portrait of Presidents). This lengthy documentary was watched by millions of American, and gave them an in-depth into the candidates backgrounds. Americans made judgments as to who they would vote for using such documentaries.

By analyzing the candidates, voters were able to gain confidence for the particular candidate who appealed to them. Debates are a way that voters can gain confidence in the various candidates. This confidence played a large role in the record breaking voter turnout. The media uses presidential debates as crucial forums for voters to grasp the character of the candidates. Undecided Americans used these debates to decide who would be the best at leading this county. Although reporters often focus on policy differences, many Americans are more interested in the character of the person who will occupy the Oval Office rather than his or her position on particular issues. The Culture and Media Institute reported that “debates are a window into the candidates’ character and values” (The Culture and Media Institute). In a volatile world where crises can arise at any moment, Americans wanted to trust that their president is guided by something stronger than public opinion (The Culture and Media Institute). The presidential debates gave an impactful glimpse into such concerns. Nearly every major news network cancelled their regularly scheduled programs and broadcasted the presidential debates. The various media outlets knew that the American public would be captivated by the debates in massive numbers. To prevent one station from having a monopoly on the viewers, many other networks decided to air these debates.

Voters assume that they are logical and that their chosen candidate is best suited for the job. Voters develop their political opinions from the sources they obtain their information from. Unfortunately, viewers are not always receiving objective news. Fox News pledges to bring “Fair and balanced News" and "We report, you decide"(Fox). Fox argues that it is one of the few fully unbiased news networks on T.V. This is an inaccurate representation of Fox’s actual broadcast. Fox is an extremely conservative news source. “Since its 1996 launch, Fox has become a central hub of the conservative movement's well-oiled media machine. Together with the GOP organization and its satellite think tanks and advocacy groups, this network of fiercely partisan outlets--such as the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal editorial page and conservative talk-radio shows like Rush Limbaugh's--forms a highly effective right-wing echo chamber where GOP-friendly news stories can be promoted, repeated and amplified” (Ackerman, par. 3). Overtly liberal stations such as ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­The NY Times and The BBC offer this same biased news casting. They are able to present their own political opinions onto the voting masses. Fox News and the Daily Show do not openly claim their biases, but upon watching any of their broadcasts, their heavy political leanings become very apparent. Though the news is one sided, viewers can easily tune into sources which offer other political perspectives in order to gain a balanced coverage of political opinions. Unfortunately, a majority of Americans do not maintain this type of balanced outlook. To the uninformed voter, broadcasts implemented by Fox News and The Daily Show can be highly impressionable. These types of one sided, biased media sources create close minded voters who make decisions based on the solitary media source they view. Some people swear by Fox new as the final and unbiased authority in media coverage. More numerous are the numbers of young people who cling to The Daily Show or the Colbert Report as their only news source. Though these news outlets are reliable, the prospect of an America which bases their decisions off the opinions of one or two biased broadcasting presents a highly uninformed America society. The problem with these overly biased shows is that they are inevitably pulling in a large mass of faithful followers. In reference to the election, Daily Show viewers saw Obama in a way that leaves little room for scrutiny. “Obama is depicted as the presidential candidate that can bring both change and hope to the White House” (Modkins, par.1). This is all they saw. They never saw the negative aspects of Obama’s policies and campaigns. With biased coverage, voter’s ability to independently form opinions is severely infringed upon. In a highly impressionistic society which often lacks individualistic ideas, the media can form massive political opinions. Bill O’Reilly noted this exact problem when he told John Stewart “you actually have influence on this presidential election. That is scary. You have influence. John Kerry bypassed me and went right over to you!!” (O’Reilly Factor). O’ Reilly saw how John Stewart’s highly liberal broadcast had a strong influence on the shows audience. These viewers are not being urged to diversify the news they receive and as a result, are virtually being brain washed into following a single ideology.

The 2008 presidential election has put an end to many of the old practices in political campaigning. Barrack Obama and John McCain relied on more that party affiliations to secure their bid for the presidency. The media was vital in the mass distribution and often distortion of political information. Due to the fact that nearly every eligible American had some sort of news source they could draw upon for political updates and understanding, this 2008 election marked the highest turnout rate since 1908 (Borenstein, par. 3). Such vast gains can be partly attributed to the media’s intense participation in the election.

Will Obama be Remembered for Environmental Efforts?

With everything facing Barack Obama as he enters gets ready to enter office in January, it seems that environmental will continue sitting on the backburner for someone else to deal with even farther in the future. When Obama enters office, he will inherit two wars and the worst economic crisis since the great depression. With these overwhelming tasks in front of him, it will be difficult to make environmental protection legislation a priority, but not attending to environmental issues is one of the worst decisions that Obama could make. After seeing how much the earth has changed with energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions still on the rise, Barack Obama needs to make it a priority of his administration to tackle this problem that will only continue to get worse if not dealt with sufficiently. Whichever President is the first to make a substantial effort to restrain our influence on the warming climate, will be remember as a great pioneer. If Barack Obama were to be that President as well as the one to confront all the other issues, he would undoubtedly be remembered as an American legend in the same standing as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
The world markets have taken great hits in the past months and there is still much speculation about how to fix the situation. All of the debate about whether or not to bail out certain companies has everyone asking, “Is it worth it?” Repairing not only the American economy, but also the world economy will not only take a lot of funds from the government, but also a great focus to iron out all the details. This will certainly keep environmental issues from taking a priority, but it will also reduce the ability for government to provide incentive for companies to make the change to energy efficiency. This is crucial in a time when businesses are already tightening spending and don’t want to invest in new technologies that are costly in the short-term.
Obama must also deal with are the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He will work to move troops out of Iraq and into Afghanistan to concentrate on the Al Qaeda there while transferring more power to the Iraqi government. With the economy as his number one priority coming into office, this is a close number two. Creating and implementing the plan to achieve these goals will take up a large part of the focus of his first one hundred days in office. As the President of the United States this is a major responsibility of his, and he must act quickly to address it.
With all of these obstacles facing him, how will Obama make time for the environment? He must first realize that the long-term goal of sustainability is just as important as; if not more important than, the other issues that he is being face with. While, in the short term the question of which issues to address most vigorously seems very easy, the long term safety of our world must also remain a priority. The major problem with global warming is manifested in the nature of the problem. The sad truth is that no one wants to take action when the earth’s temperature has only risen about one degree Celsius in the last one hundred years. While this is projected to continue to increase at an even faster rate, extreme effects have not yet been felt and there is no immediate motivation to take on this problem.
The facts tell us that a one degree temperature change in only 100 years is 20 times faster than any temperature change prior to human’s increase in release of carbon dioxide. Despite this public figures like Sarah Palin refuse to acknowledge human impact. Writing off the changes as the natural climate cycle makes it seem like the problem will naturally fix itself and thus takes away motivation to sufficiently address the problem. Fortunately Barack Obama was elected into office, and not Sarah Palin. The damage of downplaying global warming still has had a negative effect on just how climate change is being dealt with.

Obama is poised to make the changes we need, and since his election, has even addressed the severity of the issue and need to take action. In this clip he links our release of carbon dioxide to dependence on foreign oil and thus a weakening economy and threat to national security. He breaks down the carbon emission goals into levels needing to be met my 2020 as well as 2050. There will no doubt need to be more explanation as to how these goals will be met as well as additional intervals with goals to be met, but Obama is on the right track. However, simply talking about achieving goals in the future is not enough. There needs to be accountability and a real drive to motivate the people as well as the big businesses of the United States.

This negative attitude is not helping in the drive to help make our future a sustainable one. Even if the globe does not experience the catastrophic scenarios that some have predicted, it's still worth the risk to fight for because that catastrophe is still a large possibility. Ultimately what this whole argument comes down to is whether or not America as a people are motivated to take a stand and try to fix this great problem we have been dealt. The worst thing that could be done is to just wait around and hope things get better. Barack Obama has the oppurtunity to make that commitment to avert disaster and he must act on it.

A previous example of the necessary accountability and drive to reach a goal was John F. Kennedy’s push to land a man on the moon during the 1960s. This was a seemingly impossible goal that Kennedy wished to accomplish, but was nonetheless met due to the proverbial American drive and ingenuity. While this achievement was a great moment in American history, and it bears many similarities to the goal of carbon emission reduction, this task will be even more challenging for the people of the United States because it will involve the effort of everyone. The government cannot just create a program that will achieve the goal for us like NASA, but that only makes the goal that much more enviable. What Obama can do is put regulations in place to make all Americans more motivated to become more energy efficient and less dependent on combustion fossil fuels.
Not only will Obama need to impose penalties if emission levels are not met, but he will also need to encourage Americans to meet these expectations by providing incentives to invest in cleaner technologies as they become available. The government must take the first step in guiding the people of America toward a better future, not just for Americans, but for the whole world. For too long the United States has been lagging behind other powerful nations in its willingness to make a real commitment to cutting its dependence on carbon dioxide emitting fuels, and now is the time to change that behavior.
To do this Barack Obama needs to first hold the big businesses of America to much higher standards. During this economic crisis it seems that that would be the worst thing to do because with stricter regulations in the United States companies would send only more jobs overseas. This does not need to happen, though. There must be government-provided incentives that make companies want to become more environmentally friendly. Energy efficiency alone is already a big factor to do so because of the resulting lower costs for operation, and only a relatively small incentive would make businesses want to invest in achieving these low costs. Also importantly, this would keep many jobs in the United States helping the economy as well. So, not only is there upside for the environment in this situation, but there is also benefit for the economy.
Businesses are not the only ones who can partake in the effort to reduce carbon emissions, but individuals can too. Every person should also have incentive to invest in cleaner technologies just like businesses should. There are already tax breaks in place for investing in these clean technologies, but a more significant incentive should be offered to increase the effort. Also motivation should be provided for households to reduce natural gas and electrical consumption with respect to their past consumption. This would mean tax breaks for significantly reducing use of these resources and penalties for increasing use, exceptions would be made for expanding the household, for example a new child and possibly other circumstances that would require more energy.
Ultimately the decision to make energy-limiting legislation a priority comes down to whether or not Obama wants to take responsibility for the United States in the long-term or just the short-term: does he want to be remembered hundreds of years from now as the president who made a vigorous commitment to future generations to live on our earth or is he simply concerned with having a good approval rating right now during his tenure in office. We will see what is going to happen, and hopefully it is sooner than later that a real effort is made using some of these tactics. Obama’s legacy will be affected by whether or not he puts this issue off or is the President to make a stand and put a stop to the outrageous energy consumption of the United States. This is larger than just his legacy, though, and the American people and the world should not have to find out the full effects of global warming in the future when there is still time to make changes now.