Potential President Palin?

John McCain's Vice President Pick: Sarah Palin.



Age: 44

Education: BA in communications-journalism from the University of Idaho (1987.)

Years of Political Experience: 5

Views on...

Gay Marriage and Abortion:

"I am pro-life and I believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman."

Education:

"Victor Hugo said, "He who opens a school door, closes a prison." It's a privileged obligation we have to "open education doors." Every child, of every ability, is to be cherished and loved and taught. Every child provides this world hope. They are the most beautiful ingredient in our sometimes muddied up world. I am committed to our children and their education. Stepping through "the door" is about more than passing a standardized test. We need kids prepared to pass life's tests--like getting a job and valuing a strong work ethic."

Oil:

"The people of Alaska understand that Alaska has so much to contribute in terms of energy sources to the rest of the US. Folks up here want ANWR to be unlocked by the federal government so that we can drill. We've got a tremendous amount of resource up here, and we're ready, willing and able to contribute. I think Washington doesn't understand that we're at a real critical crossroads: We are either going to become more and more dependent on foreign sources of energy, or we're going to be able to secure our nation and drill domestically for safe, stable, clean supplies of energy that we have here. We have them in Alaska."

National Security: I could not find any quotes by Sarah Palin concerning National Security.

Religious Views: In a Time Magazine interview on 8/14/08, she identified herself as a “bible-believing Christian” who attends a “non-denominational Bible Church.”

Early Opinion About Being a Potential Pick for Vice President:

"But as for that VP talk all the time, I’ll tell you, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day? I’m used to being very productive and working real hard in an administration. We want to make sure that that VP slot would be a fruitful type of position, especially for Alaskans and for the things that we’re trying to accomplish up here for the rest of the U.S., before I can even start addressing that question."

Current Views About Being McCain's Pick:

“It is a great privilege to be John McCain's running mate and to be considered by the American people for the Vice Presidency. This honor is a testament to the reforms and progress we have made together in Alaska. Now is the time to take that spirit of reform to Washington.”

Where I Got My Information: http://gov.state.ak.us/

http://www.ontheissues.org/Sarah_Palin.htm

Delegates in Demand

As the "battle" between Obama and McCain intensifies, and the democratic national convention plunges into the pages of history books, much attention has been focused upon the delegates. Interestingly enough, all three newspapers that my college provides free of charge to its students have featured lengthy, if not excessive, biographies and profiles of the delegates in concern.

The obsession with delegates has me concerned.

Yes, delegates certainly are influential and dedicated people, who will, in fact, help determine the next President of these United States. But why do we need to know personal information about each delegate? I understand that the political opinions and views of such people are valuable to understand... but is it necessary that I also know the age, religion, and preferred soft drink of each delegate as well?

It is important to consider the importance of knowing all about a delegate, versus knowing what is relevant about this delegate to the current election, and how their opinions relate to current political issues. For example, it is good to learn which delegates are passionate about education, which delegates support the war in Iraq, or even how delegates have voted on past issues. Knowing the name of delegate Bob's purebred pet poodle, perhaps, is not as crucial to retain.

Front Side Seat to the Election

I am writing this from Tenley Campus, of American University. I live in downtown Washington, D.C. Recently, I have become familiar with the Metro System, the humidity, and, of course, the constant paranoia radiating from nearby police. With the elections coming up, security is tighter than ever (or so I have been told.) This is truly a fascinating time to be in Washington, and I am honored to be here. As political events unfold, I will keep updating this blog with my thoughts and insights.

Today, after Obama announced his choice for vice president, Joe Biden (by text message) the campus was in an uproar. Some students were pleased, noting that Biden does, indeed, have experience in the senate, and with politics, which Obama lacks. Yet, others were frustrated by his choice, saying that Bill Richardson would have been a far better candidate. Not only does he have experience, say Richardson supporters, but his proclaimed political values closely coincide with that of Obama's.

Of course, Clinton supporters were disappointed as well, but, interestingly enough, many students have stated "I knew she wouldn't be his choice... but it would have been nice." Why not? I, for one, am curious how they "knew" Hilary would not be selected.

In other news.....

Bubbles are everywhere.

An aerial view of my hometown.

Apologies to all who may read this blog. Since the end of my sophomore year at Beloit, I have been living in Smalltown, Minnesota. This bubble is proving to be equally hard, if not harder, to pop than that of the famed Beloit Bubble.

My hometown has one local newspaper, which focuses on community issues: the recent storm, the state of old buildings, and the upcoming events around "town." A nearby town provides a larger newspaper containing more regional news, and some national coverage, but little, if any, world news.

Most people in my hometown rely on the local town newspaper for all their news, and know little about the world beyond the city limits. Several people (myself included)have limited access to the Internet and cable television. I have accepted a summer job as a reporter for the local newspaper, and am trying to broaden the scope of articles we print. This, however, is no small feat.

In the fall, I will be studying journalism at American University, in Washington D.C. I will write about my experiences here as often as possible, and I expect that they will be quite interesting indeed. I am excited to live in a large city, have cable and Internet access, and to have a plethora of national newspapers to read.

It is important to consider the quantity (and quality) of the news that is accessible to you. How many local newspapers can you subscribe to? What kind of stories are featured? Local, regional, or world? What about your access to televised news coverage? Do you have cable? And the Internet. Do you have the Internet? Do you read on-line news venues? What websites do you visit? Do you read on-line newspapers, which feature stories from around the world... or do you prefer Facebook/Myspace, which shows you only what is going on within your social circle?

When speaking to people who have different opinions than that of your own, consider where they get their information. This may explain a great deal about that person's beliefs. If you know little about the world, it is hard to make educated decisions concerning world affairs.

It will be interesting to see what happens in my hometown this November. How many will vote? Who will they vote for... and what will they base their decisions upon?

Debate Disrespected Clinton, too.

It's been days since Tuesday's ABC News debate in Philadelphia between Obama and Clinton, and the dust still hasn't settled. From before the debate even ended, there has been a furor among media observers over the way the event was handled by ABC. The candidates' actual responses to questions have taken a backseat to the questions themselves, which some have considered so inane that the event has been widely dubbed "the worst debate ever."


Obama was the obvious target this time. As the frontrunner, it seemed reasonable that moderator (and, and must be pointed out, former Clinton aide) George Stephenopolis would go after him. However, the debate basically turned into a series of questions aimed at Obama. Much of the outrage has rightfully come from the nature of most of the questions: ABC chose to prioritize tabloid-style questions and superficial controversies over real issues. Obama was asked about American flag lapel pins, the "bitter" comment, Reverend Wright, and had his patriotism repeatedly challenged. It was not until the 16th question that Stephenopolis finally got to the economy -- even has he acknowledged it as "the number one issue in the country." Obama was justifiably upset over the line of questioning, which seemed designed to lower the discourse and ignore real problems in favor of the kind of artificial issues which the media has been churning out for years. This debate was so blatant in its insistence on muckraking that at one point, the crowd even turned on host Charles Gibson, assaulting him with a torrent of boos.

But Obama may have actually come out the better of the two. Not only did ABC's pitiful questioning fire up his base (as if they needed to be any more enthusiastic) the prevailing story ended up being "Media tries to screw Obama." The Illinois senator ended up looking like the victim of shameless yellow journalism. As for Hillary? She had a very different problem.


The moderator mostly went after Obama, with Clinton only getting a few token queries every now and then. On the surface, this may seem beneficial to the former First Lady: nothing wrong with staying out of the line of fire, right? Perhaps, but reducing Hillary to an afterthought in the debate sends the message that she doesn't really matter anymore. She was essentially treated as Obama's sparring partner on Tuesday, instead of as a legitimate candidate in her own right. And with the perception that she can't win growing by the day, Clinton can absolutly not afford to be ignored this way. Answering tough questions may be uncomfortable, but the alternative is to be saddled with the perception that you are such a political nonentity that you aren't worth questioning. At Tuesday's debate, Hillary was essentially told "you're just here as a foil for the frontrunner, so we'll go easy on you."

Over the past few weeks, Clinton has found the spotlight slowly dimming on her, even as it shines ever more brightly on Obama. The only major news story involving Clinton in the last month has been the sniper gaffe. Any other time she's in the news, it's in reaction to something Obama said or did. While the media is being increasingly hard on Obama, it is simultaneously reducing Hillary to an also-ran, as was the case on Tuesday. It is utterly crucial for her to maintain as much of that spotlight as she can in order to remain viable. But as is always the case when the media is involved, this is a problem which is largely out of the candidate's hands.

A "Bitter" Pill

Apologies for the sporadic updates. I've been slammed with assignments and Laura's computer is broken, but I should be able to update regularly again beginning today.

It seems the media's been slightly adrift over the past week or two. Hillary's sniper gaffe has run its course, and for a while there was no new major misstep or scandal to focus on. This was especially problematic because the Pennsylvania primaries are still two weeks away, so the election season is caught in a period without any actual elections in it. The media has just been waiting for a candidate to slip up again so they could pounce on it and hammer away, and now it looks like Obama has given them their chance.

The dominant story on nearly every political site since Friday has been a set of comments made by Barack Obama at a San Fransisco fundraiser in which he refers to small-town Americans as "bitter," and going on to say that "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."

It didn't take long for the media to pick up the story, and Obama's opponents followed soon after. Clinton was quick to hit him on it, using the comment to position herself as the friend of the working class (she mentioned her grandfather was a factory worker, although it is telling that one has go back two generations to find a working-class Clinton.) McCain aide Steve Schmidt also called Obama on the remarks, saying "It shows an elitism and condescension towards hardworking Americans that is nothing short of breathtaking...it is hard to imagine someone running for president who is more out of touch with average Americans."

So it seems that the right's charges about Obama are right after all. He really is an elitiest Harvard educated slickster with contempt for common American values and no understanding of the working class. The proof is in the comments, right?

Not so fast.

Obama is getting a raw deal here, on several levels. The media is famous for removing context from candidate statements, but they've truly outdone themselves this time, essentially boiling the entire statement down to a single word: "bitter." Well, there were a lot more words in Obama's statement than there. Here, in context, are his remarks:

"Here's how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by -- it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism.

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."


Doesn't seem quite so bad in context, does it? Rather than an attack on small-town America, Obama seems to be making a Clintonseque "I feel your pain" statement here. He's essentially saying "you're unhappy, you're angry, and it's because the government has forgotten about you. Well, I understand where you're coming from, and I haven't forgotten you."

Could it have been a little better phrased? Certainly. But what we have here is Obama essentially acknowledging the elephant in the room. We may not want to admit it, but there is no question that many small towns are in decline. There is no question that many people blame illegal immigrants or other minorities. There is no question that many working class people are angry. So is the whole country. Perhaps the "clinging to guns and religion" line was ill-advised, but what Obama did here was something similar to what he did with his speech on race: he had an honest conversation which acknowledged some ugly facts.

He could have offered empty compliments and canned statements about the "real America" and "salt of the Earth folks" like a typical politician, he could have done the old song-and-dance where you come in, pose next to a tractor, talk about how small towns are the most perfect, immaculate places on Earth and then continue ignoring their needs. But he wanted to have an honest conversation. He wanted to acknowledge that small towns do have problems, that their people aren't perfect, and then he wanted to ask "why is that? How can we fix it? How can I help?"

Essentially, Obama is being attacked today for refusing to pander.

Perhaps we have become so jaded, so complacent and expectant of candidates to pander to us, that any truly honest, warts-and-all statement becomes offensive. And there's no question that some lines in Obama's speech were a bit harsh and poorly chosen. But to transfer that into a supposed contempt for small-town America is absurd. If Obama has such feelings, they are not made apparent in his statements. Quite the opposite. He is trying to engage small-towners in an honest conversation instead of talking down to them. He may have failed to do that with his choice of words. But he did not insult them.

Perhaps in recognition of that, Obama has refused to take back his comments. He has expressed regret at causing offense, but maintains that the core sentiment was still valid.

The McCain and Clinton camps are jumping on this statement with everything they've got. I don't blame them. The media is going after this story like...well, like Hillary's sniper comment and Obama's preacher debacle (McCain remains safely out of the line of fire, it would seem.) Which means it will mostly blow over in a week or so, but it will leave scars which will continue to fester.

It's truly unfortunate, because this is not a story that deserves to be hyped this way. There were legitimate reasons to go after Wright. There was no way "God damn America" was going to be explained away with context. There were legitimate reasons to question the sniper comment. It was factually inaccurate no matter how you slice it. But the "bitter" story thrives on lack of context, and in fact, could hardly be as big WITH context. These are comments which are easy to misconstrue. While they might raise a minor stink on their own, rip out all the ideas and leave only the idea of "Obama says rural voters bitter, cling to guns and God," and only then do you have a major national story.

It couldn't come at a worse time for Obama, with the Pennsylvania primary two weeks away and polls showing him gaining significant ground on Clinton. This story could easily bring his numbers into freefall. We shall see.

One more observation: I have yet to hear a single actual small town Americans comment on this. For the past 24 hours, we've heard all three candidates, various hangers-on, and every pundit under the sun chime in. But every story I've read contains nothing but speculation as to how the people Obama is supposedly insulting will react. No one has bothered to go out and actually ASK these people if they're insulted or not. Instead, they've TOLD them how they feel. How's that for looking down on small towners? And now that the story's gotten such hype, it's a bit late to go around asking for comments without the whole chicken vs egg theory intruding: would they have reacted the same way before the media decided they should be outraged? We'll never know now, because the media didn't ask.

Well, you know what? I come from a small town. So here is my unsolicited opinion: I'm not happy. And what makes me unhappy is how these comments have been reported on, not the comments themselves.

Do the Ads Add Up?

As the democratic campaign continues to intensify, the candidates keep dishing out political ad after political ad. Today alone, Clinton has released five new ads which are scheduled to air in Pennsylvania. Each ad adopts a slightly different strategy. In one, Clinton is featured as a child, with her father in Pennsylvania. Why? The Pennsylvania primary is coming up, and this ad stresses Clinton’s Pennsylvania roots.

Two other ads feature Pennsylvania’s Governor Ed Rendell and Michael Nutter, mayor of Philadelphia, saying positive things about Clinton. These ads show that two prominent Pennsylvania leaders support Clinton, and imply that the general public should follow their leaders.

In yet another ad, Clinton addresses “the problem with Bush’s economy.” She says: “The Bush economy is like a trapdoor. Too many families are one pink slip, one missed mortgage payment, one medical diagnosis away from falling through and losing everything. The oil companies, the predatory student loan companies, the insurance companies and the drug companies, have had seven years of a president who stands up for them. I intend to be a president who stands up for all of you.” This ad, while not directly linked to Pennsylvania, speaks to the large portion of Pennsylvanians struggling to make ends meet.

Her final ad is intended to appeal to the Hispanic population of Pennsylvania. Entitled “Nuestra Amiga,” or “Our Friend,” the ad describes how Clinton will aid the Hispanic community. “Our voice and our vote will elect the next President of the great country. Our candidate is Hillary Clinton because she respects our culture and understands the problems that affect our community. Millions of Hispanic families live with the fear of not having health insurance. The economic crisis and the cost of living are of concern to all of us. Hillary is our friend and will help us. Let’s vote for Hillary on April 22nd and we will have a better life. We are with you!”

Obama, as well, has been shelling out ad after ad, which are also intended to appeal to a wide variety of people.

I recently participated in a little experiment of my own. Jay Hyman, a professional director of music videos, Rob Tomoro, song writer, and “local Beloit Pop Star” Nicole Waters, teamed up to produce a music video supporting Obama. In order to collect footage of “excited young people for Obama,” they came to Beloit College.



This event was shamelessly promoted before it took place, with fliers asking “Do you love Obama? Do you want to be on national T.V.? Then come show your support for Obama and be in an Obama music video!” Obama fanatics and curious students alike rallied at Middle College, and followed the directions of Hayman.

In a large crowd, students were directed to sing “It’s Our Time Now,” “dance around,” and be energetic. “You’re a star!” “You’re beautiful!” “You’re wonderful!” “More energy!” cried Hyman.

It was painful. But, I figured that, since I was going to look ridiculous “on national T.V.” anyways, I might as well enjoy it. So, I danced around, played air guitar, and made a complete fool of myself.

Somewhere in the middle of take five, I became alarmed when I realized that I was actually getting into the whole thing. Lyrics like “If life is worth living, it’s worth giving all that you’ve got… it’s our time now…” actually got to me.

The subliminal messages, and even not-so-subliminal messages, are frighteningly powerful. You may think: “I’m smarter than that; I am not influenced by commercials or marketing. I know that what I see on T.V., read on the internet, and hear on the radio is not real.”

But, think carefully. What is McDonald’s slogan? I bet you know it. Finish this sentence: “There’s no wrong way to eat…” Finish the lyrics to this song: “Give me a sign, hip me…”

Those annoying little marketing gimmicks are more effective than you think. It’s possible that those annoying little campaign commercials may be too.