Voters prefer pretty candidates????

So I just went to CNN's website, and the headline of the first article was "Study: Voters prefer pretty female candidates." The article says that women running for offices need to appear both competent and attractive, which the article uses as an excuse to justify all of Palin's spending on clothes. Then the article says men don't have to worry about being attractive as much, which the article uses an excuse to question why John Edwards needed his expensive haircut. 

This article is completely absurd!!! It so obviously is trying to make excuses for Palin for why she spent so much money on clothes, and then goes and slams Edwards for trying to make himself look better. Furthermore, what is the point of focusing on how the candidates look?? Isn't it more important to write articles focusing on what the candidates would do in office or what their policies will be instead of focusing on how the candidates look??

CNN and Palin the Diva

Wolf Blitzer's "The Situation Room" today focused mainly on the McCain and Palin camp. There was by far more coverage of those two than Obama, and even less coverage of Biden because they seem to forget that he exists at all. 

First, he focused on the horse race and the three (Obama, McCain, and Palin) campaigning in PA. There was no mention of Biden until Palin made some comments about his tax policies. Dana Bash, who was narrating this part, called McCain the "gritty warrior," which I think definitely plays on the maverick narrative. Wolf then went on for a while about McCain and Palin, but when it came time for Obama, he talked substantially less. 

The next part of the piece was "It's all about Palin." Wolf talked about how the media is so obsessed with Palin and she is now being called a "diva" and getting more air time. He talked about the tension between Palin and McCain because they are both "mavericks" and have some different ideas, and then they showed her defending her clothes and attributing them to the RNC. Some pundits that were interviewed said how a lot of the criticism to Palin is demeaning to women and is sexist, and then Wolf talked about the finger-pointing within the McCain camp at mishandling Palin.

The whole part about Palin being a diva was so ironic, because they are just perpetuating the matter by giving her even more air time through this segment. It is so obvious that the media is giving her so much more air time and is obsessed with her, why do they have to go through it even more and keep repeating it? And also, it is not demeaning to women to criticize another woman. Just because people don't like her policies doesn't mean they are criticizing them because she is a woman, it just means they disagree with her. 

Is negative campaigning good for the country?

After listening to John G. Geer speak yesterday about how negative campaigning is good for the country, I couldn't help but disagree. It's not that I disagreed with his basic argument that negative campaigning brings issues to the forefront and causes candidates to react to each other's claims, thus making it good. I think as a concept, this is fine. If this happened in our politics today, there would be nothing wrong with negative campaigning. What I disagree with is that candidates hardly ever do this. Most of the negative campaigning I have seen in this election are either exaggerated claims based on a tiny piece of fact or outrageous claims that are funny to even think about being true (example: Obama and sex education for kindergartners).

I don't think candidates saying blatant lies or stretching the truth are good for anyone, because all this does is leave voters confused about which side to believe and cause the media to harp on the negative campaigning and lies, thus keeping issues out of the media by focusing on campaign tactics.

That being said, if candidates were to do negative campaigning without using lies and confusing people, like NR did in "Believers in Barack: Apparently, Obama-love is blind," I don't think I'd have quite so much trouble with it.

In this article, Thomas Sowell lays out the facts for why he thinks people should not vote for Obama. He says that Obama is being too vague with his "change" campaign, people don't know enough about him or what he has done on issues of crime, education, financial institutions, or Iran. He goes on to talk about things we do know about Obama, such as he opposed stricter regulations on Fannie Mae, was the second-largest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae, and then sought the advise of disgraced former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines. This article presented facts, not exaggerated or blatant lies. This kind of coverage is what should be shown for both sides, because it gives voters what they need to know, not confuses them. 

Race featured on NR

NR finally addressed in an article yesterday what so many people choose to ignore or underscore the importance of: race. In "Black like Me: An overload of identity politics,"  Kathryn Jean Lopez talks about how many black magazines that never endorsed candidates before are now backing Obama. "Vibe," "Black Enterprise," and "Ebony," along with celebrities such as Sophie Okenedo, Queen Latifah, Alicia Keys, and Jennifer Hudson, all support Obama. "At this critical moment in history, Black America --and much of the nation-- are on the verge of realizing a long-awaited dream, a Black man in the White House," CEO Linda Johnson Rice said in "Ebony."

The article then talks about how ironic it is that people are shocked with the idea of Powell's endorsement of Obama having to do with race.

"On change, Obama is, like John McCain, a U.S. senator who is running against Washington. In this way he follows the footsteps of Mitt Romney. (Yes, Mitt Romney.) He echoes Sean Hannity (yes, the Sean Hannity) who continues to repeat Romney's 'Washington is broken' theme near daily. On this theme, he isn't all that unlike the maverickyness of Sarah Palin and John McCain. What makes him different? Could it be ... race?"

"I know Powell's 'inclusive'-'ability to inspire' endorsement sure sounded like it had to do with race. And I definitely know what I'm reading in the hip-hop and black mags. This election is about race to a whole lot of people ..."

FINALLY. Somebody is admitting that race is playing a factor for voters! But yea ... I thought this was an excellent article because it was not slanted conservatively at all, even though this is a conservative publication, and it talked about this important issue that is too often ignored. Other publications either ignore race all together, focus on how race is not an issue, or focus on one side accusing the other of playing the race card. This piece just showed how all these black magazines and people are support Obama because of race, and how it is definitely an issue affecting people. 

And another note, I also liked how NR admitted how Obama and McCain are not all that different either ...... 

NR on Bill Ayer

Deroy Murdock wrote "Obama's Weathermen Pals Should Worry You," a piece saying Obama and his supporters are wrongfully trivializing his connections to Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. The article chronicles Ayers' and Dohrn's past actions with the Weather Underground from the 60s through the 80s, and then it lists all the ways Obama knew and associated with Ayers.  

"No wonder Obama has been so evasive about his ties to Ayers and Dohrn. His relationship with these extreme leftists goes far beyond waving at some folks who live nearby. It defies belief that Obama never learned that they hated the USA and love TNT."

Some of the ways Obama and Ayers knew each other are:

-Obama chaired the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which Ayers inaugurated and thus they worked together on.

-Ayers invited Chicago liberals to their house to meet Obama when he ran for IL State Senate in '95.

-Obama praised Ayers' book.

-They were co-panelists for a colloquium together.

And there were many more.

It was interesting to have all the ways they knew each other spelled out. But I am still not convinced that it is that big of a deal that Obama knows him. Ayers did these things long before Obama knew him, and I don't think it means that much that he has met with him before and worked with him on projects. I have worked with MANY people I am nothing like, and that does not mean that just because I have worked with them, I am now going to copy whatever they do. The same goes with Obama. Just because he worked with Ayers and Ayers liked him does not mean that Obama is now best buddies with a terrorist. 

McCain's "that one"

CNN's coverage of McCain's "that one" during the debate focused briefly on how what he said was condescending and racist before defending him for not bringing up Bill Ayers and calling this an "encouraging sign" about the campaign. Why was the pundit quick to change the subject and defend the candidate? It is an important question to ask, because it can very easily be interpreted as racist and off limits to say. And why is it so important that he did not bring up Bill Ayers? The media is bringing it up enough anyway that McCain does not need to bother bringing it up himself to make voters think about it, the media is doing his work for him.

Furthermore, the pundit David Gergen continued to talk about how Republican rallies lately with Palin have been getting out of hand because people in the crowds have begun yelling "terrorist" and "kill him" about Obama. Anderson Cooper, who was asking the pundit questions about this, goes, "You can't control what people say, though, in a rally, can you, David?" as if to say instead, "Well, this isn't really that big of a deal, is it?" The pundit did say in response, though, that they can control it by stopping and saying this will not be condoned, which at least partly holds the McCain camp responsible. 

NR focuses on voting patterns

Today's NR articles were slightly disappointing. First, the article "McCain needs Hillary: Losing North Carolina" focused on how North Carolina normally is not a key state for Democrats because since 1976 it has gone to Republicans fairly easily. However, the large black population, its progressive streak, and northerners who flee high property taxes have changed this so now Obama is likely to take it. The article says that McCain has to learn from Clinton and target conservative Democrats uncomfortable with Obama's liberal record to win the voters over. 

A second article, "Hail-Mary vote: Understanding those mysterious Catholics," talks about the Catholic voters and how crucial they are to electoral victories. The article says that they are not understood that well despite being so important and are known to swing wildly to both sides. 

Both these articles focus on the horse race aspect of the election, like much of the mainstream media. It is disappointing because normally NR has such good articles that, although usually slanted conservatively, still offer important points to think about. These, however, just made me upset that NR is following the trend and focusing on voter demographics and which state will take who etc. 

CNN coverage raises important issue

CNN this evening raised a very important issue in part of its coverage of the election: how voters are not getting the details they crave about the candidates. More specifically, how female voters, who are supposedly more methodical and information gatherers, want more details to make their decision about how to vote for. 

A group of undecided voters from Ohio were interviewed after the debate Tuesday, and they all said they want more specifics and answers and to know how, exactly, the candidates will handle the financial bailout and other important issues. They said the debate was a disappointment because the candidates spent most of the time attacking each other instead of saying what they themselves would do. 

Furthermore, one of the women brought up how equal pay is a large issue for her and that neither of the candidates has addressed this. 

If the candidates do not start giving more details out about their positions, these women said they would stay home on election day. 

I thought this was an excellent segment that raised many important issues. First of all, it shows how people want to know more information about their positions, not more polling data and who is winning the horse race. Also, it shows how people want to make informed decisions not based on personality or likeability. The want answers to their problems. Third, it points out another huge issue in the election, equal pay, that should be asked of the candidates. 

What's ironic, though, is that after CNN airs this great piece about how voters want to know more about the candidates, they do not actually run anything showing exact positions of the candidates or asking them how they feel about equal pay for women. After being told what the viewers/voters want, they should give them this, not continue to show polling data, talk about the candidates' wives speaking out dirty campaigning, and how each candidate is being portrayed in ads. They should take their own advice and stick to the cold, hard issues!

another NR sidenote

There's another article today on NR that I think is also really good. The author of "Focus, People: A life-or-death election" says that she thinks too much emphasis is put on the economy, Iraq, and other issues, and instead there should be some focus on the possibility of nuclear holocaust.

"Alarmist? I sure hope so. Isn't it about time that we got to the point about the stakes in this election? How many more pundits do we have to watch talking about the minutae-a candidate's look, an accent, a stumble, a slogan? We have four weeks to talk about the thing that matters most: a nuclear-armed Iran, and which candidate will prevent it."

Anne Bayefsky points out here how much the mainstream media has focused on the political narratives of the candidates and stupid other trivial matters that have nothing to do with policies or positions on issues. And I think she argues well how Iran has not had as much publicity as it should. 

At the end of the article, she shows the positions Biden, Obama, Palin, and McCain had in the debates to questions about Iran, and she used these quotes to support her conservative view that McCain is more experienced in international politics and would be more likely to prevent a nuclear holocaust. The important thing here is that she clearly showed each candidate's views along with the questions asked, so people reading this can see right away which candidate shares the same position they do. 

National Review on Bill Ayers

The editors of National Review did a piece today called "The Unturned Page" where they pointed out that McCain's campaign should focus more on how he is better than Obama economically than attack him by his association with Bill Ayers. They said McCain should address middle-class concerns, show that his agenda will promote growth, make a credible pledge to prevent future financial crises like this one, and tie Obama to the liberals in Congress. 

I thought this was a really good/important article because it criticized focusing on things such as who Obama knew when he was younger that do not reflect how Obama would act as president. The fact that he knew this man does not mean that he has the same beliefs as him, and I think it is good that this conservative website acknowledges that and says that the campaign should talk about the issues that really matter, such as the economy, instead. 

CNN does the debate

I just finished watching the vice presidential debate on CNN, and the biggest complaint I have about the coverage is the stupid little monitor at the bottom of the screen measuring the approval of independent men and women from ohio. There are two major things I think are wrong with this monitor.

First of all, it is extremely distracting. I found myself looking at it throughout the debate because it was right below where they put the question they were answering, so when I looked at the question, I was immediately drawn to the monitor as well to see how these voters were reacting to the candidates' responses. This, in turn, caused me to stop paying attention to what the candidates were saying and instead see how people were responding to what they were saying. 

Second, it emphasizes the "horse race" aspect of the election even more. The debates are the few times when candidates have the chance to speak at length about issues and when voters can see how they stand and can react under pressure, and the monitor undermines the purpose of the debating by drawing attention to how everyone else is reacting and pulling your attention away from the issues.