Monday, October 20, 2008
Saturday, October 18, 2008
The Undecided Voter
It is a rare endangered species for 45 months and then with about three months before the election, it creates offspring in the form of attention-seeking animals, which dominate the political world. This specie is the undecided voter. Apparently, the undecided voter has been sent from the election heavens to decide this presidential election. However, political experts and the media are making too much of the undecided voter, because in actuality, the undecided voter most likely has made up his or her mind.
If you watched the last presidential debate on Wednesday night, you definitely know who ‘Joe the Plumber is.’ Even if you didn’t watch the debate, you have to have been locked up in a cage to have not heard anything about him. His name isn’t important, especially since his name isn’t even Joe…it’s Samuel. What is important is the candidate Joe is going to vote for. Right now, he is still undecided which puts him into the category of an undecided voter. Joe the Plumber is one of the people in our world who goes to bed every night not knowing who they are going to vote for.
The undecided voter has been a focus of the election, especially in the debates and polls. Some examples of it being on display is on CNN’s debate coverage with the line at the bottom of the screen that is based on positive or negative feedback from Ohio uncommitted voters, as well as the town hall format for the second debate where every audience member was supposedly undecided. There is also have the post-debate coverage from every station where they get together a group of these undecided voters and ask them if they have suddenly decided who to vote for after the past debate, as well as the polls released right after the debate where the people questioned are those infamous undecided voters.
It’s very hard to understand how someone can be 17 days away from the election and still not know who he or she is going to vote for, but the fact of the matter is that 8% of our nation, according to a recent LA Times poll, is undecided.
However, Barack Obama and John McCain may be wasting their precious time and money trying to sway the undecided voters. The poll put out by the LA Times may say that 8% of our nation is undecided, but Bertram Gawronski, PhD, of the University of Western Ontario, believes the voters just may not know that their decision has been made. "It's not that people are lying to the pollsters, it's that they may not consciously recognize the automatic associations that influence their decisions," said Gawronski.
An example of someone who says he is an undecided voter but when he talks about the issues and what he thinks about both candidates is the aforementioned ‘Joe the Plumber.’ He was interviewed after the debate and said he disagrees with Obama’s tax policy and feels McCain did the best job during the debate. Then, CNN came out with a story today saying McCain has invited Joe to campaign with him. If all of this evidence isn’t enough to sway you to believe Joe has already made his mind, then I don’t know what will.
So while Obama and McCain are spending money on ads being played in swing states and their time in these states, they really should be spending their time getting the 40-45% of the population that is their base to vote. If they spend their resources getting voters to the polls and getting people to register, they would be in much better shape.
So, when you turn on the television tonight or anytime in the next two weeks before the election, don’t be fooled when the media and political experts talk about the undecided voter and how critical he is to either candidate winning the election, because in reality, the undecided voter isn’t as undecided as he is made out to be. In conclusion, the undecided voter will rule the media for the next few weeks but after November 4th, it will become just another endangered specie until 2012.
If you watched the last presidential debate on Wednesday night, you definitely know who ‘Joe the Plumber is.’ Even if you didn’t watch the debate, you have to have been locked up in a cage to have not heard anything about him. His name isn’t important, especially since his name isn’t even Joe…it’s Samuel. What is important is the candidate Joe is going to vote for. Right now, he is still undecided which puts him into the category of an undecided voter. Joe the Plumber is one of the people in our world who goes to bed every night not knowing who they are going to vote for.
The undecided voter has been a focus of the election, especially in the debates and polls. Some examples of it being on display is on CNN’s debate coverage with the line at the bottom of the screen that is based on positive or negative feedback from Ohio uncommitted voters, as well as the town hall format for the second debate where every audience member was supposedly undecided. There is also have the post-debate coverage from every station where they get together a group of these undecided voters and ask them if they have suddenly decided who to vote for after the past debate, as well as the polls released right after the debate where the people questioned are those infamous undecided voters.
It’s very hard to understand how someone can be 17 days away from the election and still not know who he or she is going to vote for, but the fact of the matter is that 8% of our nation, according to a recent LA Times poll, is undecided.
However, Barack Obama and John McCain may be wasting their precious time and money trying to sway the undecided voters. The poll put out by the LA Times may say that 8% of our nation is undecided, but Bertram Gawronski, PhD, of the University of Western Ontario, believes the voters just may not know that their decision has been made. "It's not that people are lying to the pollsters, it's that they may not consciously recognize the automatic associations that influence their decisions," said Gawronski.
An example of someone who says he is an undecided voter but when he talks about the issues and what he thinks about both candidates is the aforementioned ‘Joe the Plumber.’ He was interviewed after the debate and said he disagrees with Obama’s tax policy and feels McCain did the best job during the debate. Then, CNN came out with a story today saying McCain has invited Joe to campaign with him. If all of this evidence isn’t enough to sway you to believe Joe has already made his mind, then I don’t know what will.
So while Obama and McCain are spending money on ads being played in swing states and their time in these states, they really should be spending their time getting the 40-45% of the population that is their base to vote. If they spend their resources getting voters to the polls and getting people to register, they would be in much better shape.
So, when you turn on the television tonight or anytime in the next two weeks before the election, don’t be fooled when the media and political experts talk about the undecided voter and how critical he is to either candidate winning the election, because in reality, the undecided voter isn’t as undecided as he is made out to be. In conclusion, the undecided voter will rule the media for the next few weeks but after November 4th, it will become just another endangered specie until 2012.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Journalism Over the Years
A major story doesn’t find itself, but rather it takes a man or woman with motivation and determination to go out and share with the world what he or she has found. This is a job journalists take on each and every day. It doesn’t matter if it is a reporter for the local Fox station in Los Angeles, a newspaper writer for the Washington Post or a radio talk show host in Chicago, all three have to find something that would interest the public; over the years these findings have been called news. However, the news that is delivered to the public is a lot different than it used to be. Over time, Journalism started to change from one kind of news based on actual news stories, such as World War II, the Holocaust and the civil rights movement to another type of news based on stories such as Paris Hilton going to rehab or Britney Spears losing custody of her child to Kevin Federline. There are a number of dates in history that experts can point to as the turning point of journalism, but one event that undoubtedly shifted the change in the type of news desired by the people was Watergate. Pre-1974, there wasn’t a lot of pressure amongst newspapers or television stations to find and deliver the “big story,” but Watergate changed all of this. Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of the Washington Post first broke the story of Richard Nixon and his aides conspiring to bug the headquarters of the Democratic Party in Washington D.C. It was "the single most spectacular act of serious journalism [of the 20th] century," said media critic Ben Bagdikian (American Journalism Review). This may have been a true example of serious journalism, but it was also a turning point of journalism. Because of Woodward and Bernstein, other newspapers and television stations were being pressured to first report the next big story, which has led to an increase in sensational journalism and in turn, journalism that is no longer based on its straight facts and validity, but instead on its timeliness and intrigue to the national public.
Once Woodward and Bernstein broke the story of Watergate, every network set out to find something new about Watergate that hadn’t been released. It didn’t matter if the information found had a credible source or even no source at all, it just mattered that the network find the information and be the first one to do so. Competition arose amongst the networks and managers started to realize that news could become highly profitable; this is when journalism turns into networks feeding rumors to the public. After the Congress and the courts started to expose the unlawful acts going on in the White House, the media started finding whatever it could. For example, CBS anchor Walter Cronkite “falsely implicated White House aide Patrick Buchanan in money-laundering” (American Journalism Review). A writer for the New York Times, Jeff Gerth, “claimed that Nixon’s supposed financial ties to Mafia financier Meyer Lansky and Teamsters boss Jimmy Hoffa meant that ‘organized crime…put its own man in the White House’”(American Journalism Review). Both of these examples show how the validity of the reporting is not as important as being the first to get the information out to the public.
In today’s era, it is much harder to report news that hasn’t been verified because if you are wrong, a lawsuit could arise, and in the case of a television station, it could lose its license. However, while it may be risky to release information to the public that hasn’t been verified, if the news is something that wouldn’t harm the network to a large degree, attract a lot of viewers and get ratings, it will be released. The drive for ratings has changed the type of journalism we see in today’s world. Because of the fear of lawsuits, networks are no longer focused on stories such as Watergate, but instead on stories that have more leeway in terms of their validity. For example, accusing George W. Bush of cheating on his wife and being wrong could ruin a network and bring it to the ground, but accusing Britney Spears of the same charge wouldn’t harm the network. This is why celebrities have become the focal point of today’s news. News executives are no longer focused on finding the “hard-hitting” story, but instead on getting a story that is interesting in the public’s eye.
One of the main reasons why the “hard-hitting” story is no longer as popular in today’s news is because of the way our society has changed as a whole from one that is willing to wait for the “big story” to one that wants the news instantly. “Who, today, is willing to wait a month for breaking news? We want our news now” (Nieman Reports). Whether it is text messages with the latest sports scores of your favorite team to one push of a button on your Blackberry to get on the Internet, people want the latest news as soon as possible. I even became a victim of this myself last week when waiting for the O.J. Simpson verdict. I watched the verdict being read live but I wanted to see how long it would take for CNN.com to post the verdict. It took three minutes before the page had updated. Twenty years ago, someone would have laughed at the idea of news on the Internet only three minutes after it had occurred. However, our world has changed so much over the past two decades that it would reflect negatively on the network if the breaking news weren’t updated immediately. This need for news right away has brought about the concept of a 24-hour news cycle, which has introduced “the fact that there is no deadline, or that every second is a deadline” (American Journalism Review). News channels such as CNN and Fox News were created for the sole purpose of giving news every minute of every day. It is impossible to find a new story to report every hour, so stories that would have the potential to last longer and be talked about for weeks or months became prominent in news. A few examples of this happening were the O.J. Simpson murder case and the Elian Gonzalez story (The Columbia Journalism Review). These cases may not be about health care, the economy or other huge issues in the world today, but they do have a spectacle to them. The Boston Globe put it perfectly when saying, “The past few decades have also seen a shift from stories with in-depth coverage to those with “speed and spectacle” (Boston Globe). It takes time for a big story such as Watergate to develop, but it takes five minutes for someone to see Paris Hilton on her way back from rehab, call the news station and then send a helicopter to the scene to follow her. As unfortunate as it is, the desire of people wanting news immediately has led journalists to become more like the paparazzi than a Pulitzer winner.
While timeliness has become one of the key factors in the type of news being covered, another factor is the intrigue of the news itself. An expert in health care may be thoroughly fascinated by the subject, but he or she doesn’t want to hear about it for thirty minutes. However, a story like Hurricane Katrina or the Dow Jones dropping below 10,000 for the first time in over four years is something that all people are interested in. There is one story that is found on “both the front-page and the evening news: a human-interest story” (Columbia Journalism Review). Human-interest stories may be something as important to our lives such as a hurricane or the economy, but it also could include stories such as a man having the ability to become pregnant. This exact story was on the cover of People Magazine last April. Now, while this story may not be as hard-hitting as other stories, it is intriguing in the public’s eye. The fact that it was on the cover of People Magazine, a magazine with its own website that had 51.7 million hits on the day after the Oscars in 2007, proves that the editors of the magazine felt like it would attract enough people to read it. It has the shock and startle factor that is interesting and makes people want to know more. Moreover, while the timeliness of a story is crucial in getting people’s attention, it also has to have the human-interest aspect.
There are many differences between our world today and the world we lived in thirty years ago and this clearly shows in the field of journalism. The introduction of the Internet and cable news has forced the journalism industry to adjust in order to keep people interested. News stories used to sell themselves and some still do today, but because of the way our society has changed over the past few decades, the media has to do more to sell its product. Whether it is making the news released to the public timelier or adding a human-interest aspect to it, it definitely takes something extra today to get people interested. Twenty years from now, the journalism industry definitely won’t be the same and there will be something new and exciting that gets people interested. Someone living twenty years ago would have balked at the idea of news alerts via text message or Internet on a cell phone, but this just shows how journalism is continuing to change. As we reflect back, journalists were defined as reporters who delivered solely factual news, while today many of them are viewed simply as sensationalists whose intent is to provide news with dramatic and artistic expression, while the question arises as to what the future of journalism will hold and how it will be defined.
Once Woodward and Bernstein broke the story of Watergate, every network set out to find something new about Watergate that hadn’t been released. It didn’t matter if the information found had a credible source or even no source at all, it just mattered that the network find the information and be the first one to do so. Competition arose amongst the networks and managers started to realize that news could become highly profitable; this is when journalism turns into networks feeding rumors to the public. After the Congress and the courts started to expose the unlawful acts going on in the White House, the media started finding whatever it could. For example, CBS anchor Walter Cronkite “falsely implicated White House aide Patrick Buchanan in money-laundering” (American Journalism Review). A writer for the New York Times, Jeff Gerth, “claimed that Nixon’s supposed financial ties to Mafia financier Meyer Lansky and Teamsters boss Jimmy Hoffa meant that ‘organized crime…put its own man in the White House’”(American Journalism Review). Both of these examples show how the validity of the reporting is not as important as being the first to get the information out to the public.
In today’s era, it is much harder to report news that hasn’t been verified because if you are wrong, a lawsuit could arise, and in the case of a television station, it could lose its license. However, while it may be risky to release information to the public that hasn’t been verified, if the news is something that wouldn’t harm the network to a large degree, attract a lot of viewers and get ratings, it will be released. The drive for ratings has changed the type of journalism we see in today’s world. Because of the fear of lawsuits, networks are no longer focused on stories such as Watergate, but instead on stories that have more leeway in terms of their validity. For example, accusing George W. Bush of cheating on his wife and being wrong could ruin a network and bring it to the ground, but accusing Britney Spears of the same charge wouldn’t harm the network. This is why celebrities have become the focal point of today’s news. News executives are no longer focused on finding the “hard-hitting” story, but instead on getting a story that is interesting in the public’s eye.
One of the main reasons why the “hard-hitting” story is no longer as popular in today’s news is because of the way our society has changed as a whole from one that is willing to wait for the “big story” to one that wants the news instantly. “Who, today, is willing to wait a month for breaking news? We want our news now” (Nieman Reports). Whether it is text messages with the latest sports scores of your favorite team to one push of a button on your Blackberry to get on the Internet, people want the latest news as soon as possible. I even became a victim of this myself last week when waiting for the O.J. Simpson verdict. I watched the verdict being read live but I wanted to see how long it would take for CNN.com to post the verdict. It took three minutes before the page had updated. Twenty years ago, someone would have laughed at the idea of news on the Internet only three minutes after it had occurred. However, our world has changed so much over the past two decades that it would reflect negatively on the network if the breaking news weren’t updated immediately. This need for news right away has brought about the concept of a 24-hour news cycle, which has introduced “the fact that there is no deadline, or that every second is a deadline” (American Journalism Review). News channels such as CNN and Fox News were created for the sole purpose of giving news every minute of every day. It is impossible to find a new story to report every hour, so stories that would have the potential to last longer and be talked about for weeks or months became prominent in news. A few examples of this happening were the O.J. Simpson murder case and the Elian Gonzalez story (The Columbia Journalism Review). These cases may not be about health care, the economy or other huge issues in the world today, but they do have a spectacle to them. The Boston Globe put it perfectly when saying, “The past few decades have also seen a shift from stories with in-depth coverage to those with “speed and spectacle” (Boston Globe). It takes time for a big story such as Watergate to develop, but it takes five minutes for someone to see Paris Hilton on her way back from rehab, call the news station and then send a helicopter to the scene to follow her. As unfortunate as it is, the desire of people wanting news immediately has led journalists to become more like the paparazzi than a Pulitzer winner.
While timeliness has become one of the key factors in the type of news being covered, another factor is the intrigue of the news itself. An expert in health care may be thoroughly fascinated by the subject, but he or she doesn’t want to hear about it for thirty minutes. However, a story like Hurricane Katrina or the Dow Jones dropping below 10,000 for the first time in over four years is something that all people are interested in. There is one story that is found on “both the front-page and the evening news: a human-interest story” (Columbia Journalism Review). Human-interest stories may be something as important to our lives such as a hurricane or the economy, but it also could include stories such as a man having the ability to become pregnant. This exact story was on the cover of People Magazine last April. Now, while this story may not be as hard-hitting as other stories, it is intriguing in the public’s eye. The fact that it was on the cover of People Magazine, a magazine with its own website that had 51.7 million hits on the day after the Oscars in 2007, proves that the editors of the magazine felt like it would attract enough people to read it. It has the shock and startle factor that is interesting and makes people want to know more. Moreover, while the timeliness of a story is crucial in getting people’s attention, it also has to have the human-interest aspect.
There are many differences between our world today and the world we lived in thirty years ago and this clearly shows in the field of journalism. The introduction of the Internet and cable news has forced the journalism industry to adjust in order to keep people interested. News stories used to sell themselves and some still do today, but because of the way our society has changed over the past few decades, the media has to do more to sell its product. Whether it is making the news released to the public timelier or adding a human-interest aspect to it, it definitely takes something extra today to get people interested. Twenty years from now, the journalism industry definitely won’t be the same and there will be something new and exciting that gets people interested. Someone living twenty years ago would have balked at the idea of news alerts via text message or Internet on a cell phone, but this just shows how journalism is continuing to change. As we reflect back, journalists were defined as reporters who delivered solely factual news, while today many of them are viewed simply as sensationalists whose intent is to provide news with dramatic and artistic expression, while the question arises as to what the future of journalism will hold and how it will be defined.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Post Season Baseball and an Early Look at the Clippers
After enjoying some bagels and cream cheese, some kugel and some dessert, I sat down to watch the end of the Dodgers-Phillies game. I was extremely excited by the end result: a 3-2 win by the Phillies. It took almost six innings for the Phillies to get to Derek Lowe. A huge error by Rafael Furcal was followed by a huge home run by Chase "Mr. April" Utley. It was only Utley's 2nd home run in 38 games but it came at a perfect time. Two batters later, Pat Burrell hit a solo shot to put the Phillies up for good.
Besides for Andre Ethier and Manny Ramirez, the Dodgers looked awful. The rest of the team will be happy to know that they won't be seeing Cole Hamels again until Game 5. Give credit to the Phillies fans for sticking in there and rooting on their team for more than one inning. I don't think there is any way Chad Billingsley loses tomorrow afternoon to Brett Myers, so I am predicting a 5-2 Dodgers victory. As my friend Jason says, "Billingsley will have a very similar run as Josh Beckett when he was a Florida Marlin."
After I watched the Phillies win, I decided to watch my Los Angeles Clippers against the Los Angeles Lakers in a pre-season game. I only caught the end, but I have a few thoughts on what I saw in a short time period from the Clippers rookies.
1. The Clippers draft picks from this year are going to end up being VERY good. I didn't get a chance to see Eric Gordon play but I have heard good things and I think his shooting will be a very valuable asset to this squad.
2. Also, DeAndre Jordan is for real. This kid looks good. He somehow ended up slipping to the Clippers in the 2nd round even though he was one of the top 25 guys in the draft. He is 6 foot 11 but he has a huge wingspan and will be very similar to another Clipper player...Marcus Camby. Both are long, athletic rebounders. Jordan should learn from Camby this year, which will help Jordan and the Clippers a lot. I expect big things from this kid.
3. The Clippers got a kid by the name of Mike Taylor in the late 2nd round. The Clippers got the pick from the Houston Rockets and it might be one of the best quiet moves the Clippers have ever made. The Clippers will need a point guard after Davis leaves town and hopefully Taylor is the guy. He definitely impressed today by making 9 of 12 shots for 20 points. He did have five turnovers but I will turn my head on that one and give the rookie a break.
4. Baron Davis looks great in a Clippers uniform.....FINE, he's not a rookie but he still looks like he belongs in the red and blue.
I will be blogging all year on the Clippers so look forward to it!
Until next time, goodnight from the press box.
Besides for Andre Ethier and Manny Ramirez, the Dodgers looked awful. The rest of the team will be happy to know that they won't be seeing Cole Hamels again until Game 5. Give credit to the Phillies fans for sticking in there and rooting on their team for more than one inning. I don't think there is any way Chad Billingsley loses tomorrow afternoon to Brett Myers, so I am predicting a 5-2 Dodgers victory. As my friend Jason says, "Billingsley will have a very similar run as Josh Beckett when he was a Florida Marlin."
After I watched the Phillies win, I decided to watch my Los Angeles Clippers against the Los Angeles Lakers in a pre-season game. I only caught the end, but I have a few thoughts on what I saw in a short time period from the Clippers rookies.
1. The Clippers draft picks from this year are going to end up being VERY good. I didn't get a chance to see Eric Gordon play but I have heard good things and I think his shooting will be a very valuable asset to this squad.
2. Also, DeAndre Jordan is for real. This kid looks good. He somehow ended up slipping to the Clippers in the 2nd round even though he was one of the top 25 guys in the draft. He is 6 foot 11 but he has a huge wingspan and will be very similar to another Clipper player...Marcus Camby. Both are long, athletic rebounders. Jordan should learn from Camby this year, which will help Jordan and the Clippers a lot. I expect big things from this kid.
3. The Clippers got a kid by the name of Mike Taylor in the late 2nd round. The Clippers got the pick from the Houston Rockets and it might be one of the best quiet moves the Clippers have ever made. The Clippers will need a point guard after Davis leaves town and hopefully Taylor is the guy. He definitely impressed today by making 9 of 12 shots for 20 points. He did have five turnovers but I will turn my head on that one and give the rookie a break.
4. Baron Davis looks great in a Clippers uniform.....FINE, he's not a rookie but he still looks like he belongs in the red and blue.
I will be blogging all year on the Clippers so look forward to it!
Until next time, goodnight from the press box.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
VP Debate
It was touted as a must-see debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden. It was the only debate between the two Vice Presidential candidates that the nation was going to see. One could call it David vs. Goliath. Click here to see the debate.
Sarah Palin, aka David, came in to this debate well-liked by conservatives and hated by liberals. The pundits said she was going to get the floor wiped by Joe Biden. Biden, aka Goliath, has been in the Senate ever since Palin was in 2nd grade. He has proven he knows how to debate....and he showed the nation why he is ready to become VP. Palin also showed the nation why it is a freaking scary thought to think she is a heart beat away from the presidency.
One of the main reasons why I thought Palin didn't do a good job on Thursday was because of the way she debated. Every time she talked, it seemed very scripted. We all know she had spent the past few days in debate camp and it absolutely showed.
Just a quick thought...Does this mean that if Palin were to become Vice President she would need to take a 'How to Be a Vice President' tutorial?
Joe Biden didn't need any debate camp. He knew his stuff and shined. He knew what he wanted to talk about when it pertained to every issue, unlike Palin who pivoted to discuss the issues she wanted to talk about. At one point, Biden even called Palin out by saying how Palin didn't even answer the question. Palin responded by saying she may not say what the moderator or Biden wants to hear, and she only cares about informing the American people of the issues they need to be concerned about. (In a nutshell, this mean Palin will only discuss the few issues that 'Debate Camp' taught her.)
Let's be real here...Joe Biden could have made Palin look awful and attacked her on foreign policy, her experience, etc...but instead, Biden concentrated on attacking McCain. The nation, especially the undecided voters, don't want to hear how bad of a vice president Palin would be, but instead why they should vote for Barack Obama over John McCain. Biden accomplished just this, because he attacked McCain at every moment possible, which meant Palin couldn't go after Obama because she had to spend her time defending McCain.
Therefore, I give Biden an A in this debate and Sarah Palin a C. She exceeded expectations because she didn't say anything moronic, but she told lies and wasn't able to attack Obama at all. Next up....Presidential Debate #2 on Tuesday. Should be a great one.
Until next time, goodnight from the press box.
Sarah Palin, aka David, came in to this debate well-liked by conservatives and hated by liberals. The pundits said she was going to get the floor wiped by Joe Biden. Biden, aka Goliath, has been in the Senate ever since Palin was in 2nd grade. He has proven he knows how to debate....and he showed the nation why he is ready to become VP. Palin also showed the nation why it is a freaking scary thought to think she is a heart beat away from the presidency.
One of the main reasons why I thought Palin didn't do a good job on Thursday was because of the way she debated. Every time she talked, it seemed very scripted. We all know she had spent the past few days in debate camp and it absolutely showed.
Just a quick thought...Does this mean that if Palin were to become Vice President she would need to take a 'How to Be a Vice President' tutorial?
Joe Biden didn't need any debate camp. He knew his stuff and shined. He knew what he wanted to talk about when it pertained to every issue, unlike Palin who pivoted to discuss the issues she wanted to talk about. At one point, Biden even called Palin out by saying how Palin didn't even answer the question. Palin responded by saying she may not say what the moderator or Biden wants to hear, and she only cares about informing the American people of the issues they need to be concerned about. (In a nutshell, this mean Palin will only discuss the few issues that 'Debate Camp' taught her.)
Let's be real here...Joe Biden could have made Palin look awful and attacked her on foreign policy, her experience, etc...but instead, Biden concentrated on attacking McCain. The nation, especially the undecided voters, don't want to hear how bad of a vice president Palin would be, but instead why they should vote for Barack Obama over John McCain. Biden accomplished just this, because he attacked McCain at every moment possible, which meant Palin couldn't go after Obama because she had to spend her time defending McCain.
Therefore, I give Biden an A in this debate and Sarah Palin a C. She exceeded expectations because she didn't say anything moronic, but she told lies and wasn't able to attack Obama at all. Next up....Presidential Debate #2 on Tuesday. Should be a great one.
Until next time, goodnight from the press box.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Debate #1
The first debate is in the past, which means it's time for the Press Box to offer its opinion on one of the most historical debates ever. If you weren't aware, the debate took place on the campus of Ole Miss in Mississippi which is extremely significant because of the racism that existed only 40 years ago.
Anyways, back to the actual debate. I predicted a few days ago that this debate would be a tie. One would figure McCain would get the edge going in because it was a debate on foreign policy; however, with the current economy, I knew the economy would get discussed which means an edge towards Obama.
This is exactly what I think happened. Barack Obama sounded much more comfortable talking about the economy than John McCain, but McCain sounded better when discussing foreign policy.
First, let's discuss the economy part of the debate. Two things that Obama needed to do during this part of the debate were to hammer McCain for being so out of touch and secondly, ensure the American people that the economy will improve. He definitely did the first part, but I wasn't sold on the second. McCain didn't have any memorable moment from the economy part, so I give the edge to Obama.
Now, let's talk about foreign policy. Obama did a great job reminding Americans that he was the one that opposed the Iraq war from the start. Obama did one thing during this portion of the debate that was memorable...At one point in the debate, there was a question about foreign policy that Obama couldn't defend so he borrowed Joe Biden's biographic credibility. If you took any political science class, you would know that if you don't have the credibility yourself, then borrow it.
One man that doesn't need to borrow any biographic credibility when it comes to foreign policy is John McCain. He won the foreign policy debate because of two key moments...The first moment came when he was discussing Afghanistan. He hammered Obama for being a head of a co-committee and not going to Afghanistan. I completely agreed with McCain during this part of the debate. Obama should have gone to Afghanistan so he could have first hand knowledge of the subject at hand. Secondly, McCain had the clear edge when he discussed Israel. He kept repeating the fact that he wants to protect Israel. I have watched a lot of Obama speeches and am yet to hear any discussion about Israel. Interestingly enough, I don't know many Jewish people that are bringing this up. Anyways, the edge goes to McCain on the foreign policy part of the debate.
There were a couple comical moments in the debate that stuck out in my mind. The first one came during the economy discussion when Obama was attacking McCain for saying ten days ago that the fundamentals of the economy are sound. Right afterwards, moderator Jim Lehrer told Obama to look at McCain when he was talking, and McCain jokingly said "Are you afraid I couldn't hear him?" Well, actually John...I think he was afraid you couldn't hear him. I mean you are getting pretty old there pal.
Secondly, one can't forget the story McCain gave about the bracelet he was given by a mother who made him promise his son's death wasn't in vain, to which Obama exclaimed that he was given a bracelet as well. I listened to this part on the radio and when I heard McCain's story, I actually felt for him...but that was shortlived because Obama stomped on McCain's parade.
It is now time to get ready for Thursday's debate that will pit Joe Biden in one corner and Sarah Palin in the other. My prediction on this one: Palin will sound very convincing and strong but there will be a few moments where she doesn't know what she is talking about which is why I will give Joe Biden the edge.
Until next time, goodnight from the press box.
Anyways, back to the actual debate. I predicted a few days ago that this debate would be a tie. One would figure McCain would get the edge going in because it was a debate on foreign policy; however, with the current economy, I knew the economy would get discussed which means an edge towards Obama.
This is exactly what I think happened. Barack Obama sounded much more comfortable talking about the economy than John McCain, but McCain sounded better when discussing foreign policy.
First, let's discuss the economy part of the debate. Two things that Obama needed to do during this part of the debate were to hammer McCain for being so out of touch and secondly, ensure the American people that the economy will improve. He definitely did the first part, but I wasn't sold on the second. McCain didn't have any memorable moment from the economy part, so I give the edge to Obama.
Now, let's talk about foreign policy. Obama did a great job reminding Americans that he was the one that opposed the Iraq war from the start. Obama did one thing during this portion of the debate that was memorable...At one point in the debate, there was a question about foreign policy that Obama couldn't defend so he borrowed Joe Biden's biographic credibility. If you took any political science class, you would know that if you don't have the credibility yourself, then borrow it.
One man that doesn't need to borrow any biographic credibility when it comes to foreign policy is John McCain. He won the foreign policy debate because of two key moments...The first moment came when he was discussing Afghanistan. He hammered Obama for being a head of a co-committee and not going to Afghanistan. I completely agreed with McCain during this part of the debate. Obama should have gone to Afghanistan so he could have first hand knowledge of the subject at hand. Secondly, McCain had the clear edge when he discussed Israel. He kept repeating the fact that he wants to protect Israel. I have watched a lot of Obama speeches and am yet to hear any discussion about Israel. Interestingly enough, I don't know many Jewish people that are bringing this up. Anyways, the edge goes to McCain on the foreign policy part of the debate.
There were a couple comical moments in the debate that stuck out in my mind. The first one came during the economy discussion when Obama was attacking McCain for saying ten days ago that the fundamentals of the economy are sound. Right afterwards, moderator Jim Lehrer told Obama to look at McCain when he was talking, and McCain jokingly said "Are you afraid I couldn't hear him?" Well, actually John...I think he was afraid you couldn't hear him. I mean you are getting pretty old there pal.
Secondly, one can't forget the story McCain gave about the bracelet he was given by a mother who made him promise his son's death wasn't in vain, to which Obama exclaimed that he was given a bracelet as well. I listened to this part on the radio and when I heard McCain's story, I actually felt for him...but that was shortlived because Obama stomped on McCain's parade.
It is now time to get ready for Thursday's debate that will pit Joe Biden in one corner and Sarah Palin in the other. My prediction on this one: Palin will sound very convincing and strong but there will be a few moments where she doesn't know what she is talking about which is why I will give Joe Biden the edge.
Until next time, goodnight from the press box.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)