hope after all?

Senator Ted "the internet is tubes" Stevens is convicted on several felony charges of lying to cover up a quarter million dollars in bribes. Something about Seward's icebox inspires politicians to abuse their power up there. Any ideas on either how or whether the Obama campaign will try to link this to Palin's spotty record ala Troopergate?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/27/AR2008102702557.html

Troopergate 2008: Power-abusing Palin forced to consider next move

Alaska's bipartisan Legislative Council unanimously ruled this evening that Sarah Palin abused her power in trying to get her brother in law fired from the state police. With the Troopergate scandal resolved within a month to go in the election, how do you think the McCain campaign will respond? Will they brush this off as a witch hunt? Will they use the opportunity to dump Palin for somebody a little more skilled with the media (and the economy)? Oh, the intrigue continues...

Palin, Gender, Media blackouts

Some of us were recently talking about how constrained, restrained and over coached Sarah Palin has seemed. I remember watching interviews she did before she was announced as the VP and she seemed sharp and comfortable. I have always expected her to be smart and politically talented (kinda like she was in the state of the union). However, the disaster that was the Couric interview raises all sorts of other questions. I wonder how the Palin selection will be looked back on, what the legacy of it will be. This article offered some interesting perspective: it's angle is tokenism and affirmative action. I think the author is struggling with a similar questions:
http://www.slate.com/id/2200928/

Research/Thoughs

I really think you all should give this article a read:
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20080925_Viral_video_melds_Obama__McCain__Letterman__Palin___Couric_into_cyber-soup.html
It puts the spotlight on the role of viral videos in politics. It even makes commentary about what viral videos are doing to print media. It has interesting arguments about the way people ignore important stuff (Bush's speech) in favor of less important things (Letterman's rant) but also argues that there are some benefits: i.e. people who couldn't see the Couric interview can watch it online.
I also think you all should look at these two videos:

When I'm posting this the video has been watched almost 1.25 million times. It has only been online for a day.
This next one has been viewed almost 400,000 times but it looks like some earlier versions have been taken off so that may not be an accurate number:

These videos are among the most viewed content on YouTube and the Letterman rant is #1 with a bullet, viewed almost 800,000 times more than number 2.
So questions: what are the impacts this has on democracy? I'm assuming some are good and some are bad, but can we safely say that "viral video" culture is a phenomenon fully separate from the way we've talked about the internet in the past?

Second, to everyone and especially new media folk, this seems like one of the major stories of this election. I already have a giant stack of news articles about the way youtube videos and such have played out in other elections (especially in 2006). Should we be talking about a research project that gets at the question of viral videos? What questions should we be asking? What kind of research should we conduct?

Race and wolves

Feel free to call me crazy but...



Isn't it possible that this ad is an attempt to play on a typical cultural stereotype about black men and white women? I’ve watched it a few times and here is what I’m thinking:
1. The image selection goes like this: Palin, mean looking Obama, yelling Obama, wolves.
2. The voice-over talks about Obama attacking Palin as the image transitions from Palin to Obama.
3. The “angry black man attacks helpless white woman” is one of the most common myths used to perpetuate racism throughout American history. It’s not just a part of the story, it is a pervasive and embedded cultural myth.
You may think this is crazy to say because there is next to zero evidence that race is present in this commercial. However, as we know in our culture, race is always present. Blackness is never invisible and the race of an African American is always in the background of any situation.
Last semester Dr. Banwart showed us a picture that the Clinton camp had doctored to make Obama look darker and to make his facial features appear more in line with stereotypes/caricatures. Why bring this up? Because I think politicians will do anything they think they can get away with if it helps them get elected and because I don’t want people to think the race issue only applies to Rs. It is great that sexism in politics gets to be discussed so openly (but sad that it is becoming so trivial…can’t we talk about the real challenges to Palin as a woman seeking the role?). So what about race?
So if I were thinking like Lakoff (or if I were doing a poor imitation) I might suggest that this ad is designed to activate the cultural archetype of an angry black man preying on a helpless white woman. Thoughts?

Father Figure Frame in Action

While I do not mean this post as a response to Lacey's critique of Lakoff's book, I would like to offer up the following brand spanking new ad out of the McCain camp. I think this ad may add (oh look at my pun usage) to the theory of framing and how Lakoff says the Republicans try to get folks to understand messages through the powerful father figure frame.

I am sure Lacey's comments will get a good discussion of the book going tomorrow, so this clip can add a little bit of extra spice to the conversation. I think it is necessary to understand how and why McCain decided to endorse and run an ad that attacks Obama in such a stern and direct way. I think Lakoff's theory of framing throughout the book begins to answer those questions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NseW0UPMLtg

Enjoy!

1st presidential debate

I have seen footage of the first presidential debate and have it here, and advanced preview for your eyes only:



Who do you think won?

Gender, Palin, Feminism

This LA Times op-ed penned by Gloria Steinem is linked on RealClearPolitics today:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-steinem4-2008sep04,0,7915118.story
It is a good read. It makes a strong case against Palin as a candidate for women or feminism without resorting to tasteless attacks on her family (who would do that anyway...could we scrub the posts below where I do that?).
For all interested in discussing the gender implications of this selection, I suggest this article is a good starting point. For me there are a few points that stand out:
1. Steinem does challenge Palin on experience. Many on the right have played the sexism card when others have raised the experience concenrn. Steinem blames McCain for selecting an inexperienced woman over more qualified republicans (Maine Sen. Snow among them).
2. She points out what many of us have been saying, that if McCain thinks Palin is going to pick up many Hillary supporters he is clearly confusing form for content.
3. She makes a truly compelling cases against Palin from the perspective of a liberal:
"Palin's value to those patriarchs is clear: She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women's wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves "abstinence-only" programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions; she tried to use taxpayers' millions for a state program to shoot wolves from the air but didn't spend enough money to fix a state school system with the lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation; she runs with a candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act but supports $500 million in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska; she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, though even McCain has opted for the lesser evil of offshore drilling. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger."

We've been talking around the question of Palin and gender for a while, hitting on it every now and then as it deals with other conversations. I thought it merited focus and thought. I know some of our blog others have studied the subject of gender in politics quite extensively. This nomination ensures that even with Hilary's exit from center stage gender will still be focal. So lets talk about it : )

MSNBC's Ooops

One thing I just found...

Evidently Republican analysts Peggy Noonan and Mike Murphy were caught on MSNBC on tape having an open discussion of their opinions of VP pick Palin. The analysts thought their microphones were off, but were not.

Here is the link to the CNN article, including a formal apology from Noonan:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/03/hot-mic-catches-gop-strategists-trashing-palin-pick/

Here is the link to the clip on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrG8w4bb3kg

A new rumor makes the rounds

Apparently the AIP (Alaska Independence Party), is now claiming that Palin was a member of their group back in the 1990s.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/members-of-frin.html

McCain's camp is denying it, naturally. It already seems like McCain's camp is spending quite a bit of time putting out fires about Palin's life/credentials.

Ah, and on the Biden front, he apparently received 5 student deferments during Vietnam, before being declared ineligible due to asthma.

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/ats-ap-cvn-biden-vietnamaug31,0,2934547.story

A reflection on McCain's decision making process

The controversy surrounding Palin's choice gives us an interesting opportunity to examine McCain's decision making process. This thought has nothing to do with Palin's daughter being pregnant because I could absolutely care less. However, this does relate to the fact that McCain's choice seems to have been made hastily and purely for political reasons. They seemed to have missed her entanglement in ethics investigations, and were willing to overlook an extremely slim political resume. Furthermore, McCain has almost a non-existent relationship with Palin. Current reporting says that McCain first met Palin in Feburary, held one phone call a week later, and then didn't speak to her again until days before offering her the VP. In what seems to be a continuing pattern, the Republican party seems overly willing to settle for short term political gains (the shock of selecting a woman) that may jeopardize future political situations (her complete lack of experience). Seeing our current political situations domestically and abroad, a president's decision making process is all the more important. I may be looking too far into this, but given the lack of substantive reporting, I find myself analyzing anything I can. 

George Lakoff's take on the Palin pick

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/the-palin-choice-and-the_b_123012.html

"[The] Palin nomination changes the game. The initial response has been to try to keep the focus on external realities, the "issues," and differences on the issues. But the Palin nomination is not basically about external realities and what Democrats call "issues," but about the symbolic mechanisms of the political mind -- the worldviews, frames, metaphors, cultural narratives, and stereotypes. The Republicans can't win on realities. Her job is to speak the language of conservatism, activate the conservative view of the world, and use the advantages that conservatives have in dominating political discourse."

It seems we can put one rumor to rest

Bristol Palin (Gov. Palin's 17 year old daughter) is currently pregnant:

  

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080901/pl_nm/usa_politics_palin_dc

The Republican Party and the Red Cross will get us through Gustav

Here's my favorite link of the day (so far, the day's still very young):

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/31/rnc.gustav/index.html

I'm telling you, Gustav is a conspiracy! With a name like that...

Palin's Experience: PTA President (...) Close Proximity to Russia

http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Play/32356/1/TW-Cindy-PTA-Russia-083108.wmv/

"Foreign policy experience," who knows what this term of art means these days, is apparently learned through the process of osmosis. This statement could easily be an ironic joke if Mrs. Cheney didn't actually believe what she was saying. I wonder how many citizens are persuaded by this message. Following her line of logic, does this mean Obama, as a Hawaiian native, has expansive Pacific nation foreign policy experience?

Obviously the better line of comparison, as John McCain has been using quite often, is "executive experience" (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/31/politics/animal/main4401349.shtml).

Palin

I feel like this article finally gets the real point and impact of the Palin selection:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/13016.html
McCain seems to have found a way to energize the evangelical wing of the Republican party. It's about guns in the rust belt and abortions in the south. Will McCain dispense with his moderation on these issues to compliment Palin or are social conservatives going to have to ignore the presidential debates?
One other thing interesting about this article, what's with social conservatives using the F word in sound bites?

Get a load of this ad--like the DNC one but meaner