obama commercial

I could only catch the last maybe 10 minutes of Obama's 30-minute commercial. I have to say I was unsure exactly how it would go, but I think the commercial did a good job of connecting people to him. I think from the beginning Obama has been scrutinized for being inexperienced and says a bunch of nothing, so he really tried to show his leadership, especially when citizens came on who were struggling financially etc.. and he was showing how he would help and his strengths in certain areas. As much as Obama has been a popular candidate, I think that with Palin entering this race, she has been the one whos personality is catching people's attention. Her "common man" "outsider" appeal is giving her a lot of attention and possibly swinging votes. And so, From what I saw of the commercial, Obama was trying to use his personality and show he is not the "elitist." I think this commercial was important for Obama becasue in he debates he had always seemed to be on the defensive, as McCain did seem to attack him. And so i think it was imoportant that he could go on and tell us his story, his policies, and how he is qualified to be presidnet, without the interruption of media punditry or mccain attacking him right away. I liked how he brought it back to live in Florida, because Florida is going to be a big state to win in this election. I wish I could have caught the whole thing, but I know it will be posted online somewhere.

public funding.

I have a questions about public funding for candidates' campaigning. I know McCain and Obama both originally decided to use public funding for their campaigns, but Obama withdrew that once he was fundraising much more than the $89 million set aside for him. But now that he is financing on his own, what happens to the $89 million? we were talking about this in one of my other classes, and we all didnt know where it goes. Back to the government to use? Or set aside for a later campaign, I'm unsure. I would like to say it would go back to the fed. government to use for something good, but I dont know. Maybe you would have an answer or idea?

Obama wins!!!...?

The New Mexico Sun News, a bi-monthly newspaper declared Obama the winner in its headline. Since their next edition wouldnt come out until after the election, the editors decided to declare Obama the winner.The editors wrote, “When it comes to calling the winner of a presidential election, everyone wants to be first. The New Mexico Sun News hereby claims that achievement.”
What if Obama loses?? they might feel really stupid then. I dont really get it, I mean I know you want to sell papers and be the first to declare the winner, but when election day is a week away, they are jumping the gun. Even when polls show Obama is leading now, this race will be close and we all know it. The Bradley Effect, events in this next week could all effect the outcome and really we dont know what will happen come November 4. It scares me to see something like this happen, because Obama might not win. And i dont like either getting hopes up and it faling through or the fact that the ending is spoiled.

Mark Finkelstein

I enjoyed our guest today. I think he did a great job of expressing his views on good reporting done in the mainstream media outlets. I think it is always nice to have a different opinion and view in the classroom, a conservative view, even if we all dont agree. One thing, though, that I really was confused about personally, was his comment on Sarah Palin when asked what he thought about her being qualified. He said, "in a pinch" Plain over Biden. And that just strikes me as absurd. "In a pinch" is not something we should be saying about VP qualifications. And then he said he would rather have her inexperience and ignorance/uninformed in the office over Biden who is completely informed has expericen, knows what is going on with the issues, but has made a few mistakes. Are we going to say mistakes are always bad, becasue I'm sure we could go on and discuss mistakes made by every president before going into office. I think I'm just surprised that he would take an unqualified person for office rather than someone who has had years and years of experience.

Obama did vote.

this article from media matters displays another example of false reporting. The Washington Times reported a Sen. Lindsay Graham saying Obama did not vote on a resolution condemning MoveOn.org's "General Betray Us" ad. The article failed to mention that Obama in fact did vote for a separate amendment condemning the ad, one that Graham voted against. This amendment also condemned attacks on any member who served in the armed forces. My question here.. and it always is, why not report the facts? I dont see the point in only giving the small amounts of information, when the truth is so easily available to find out. And it just ruins the credibility of the papers, to an extent. I mean I know some newspapers do lean a certain way, but it when reporting on a candidate, at least give the right information, especially when there is no "gotcha" news here. I mean the story is not very strong, considering Obama did in fact vote for an amendment condemning the ad as well as any other attacks on Us Armed Forces. An amenment Graham did not vote for.. Now maybe that should be the story.

race: a factor.

This article from media matters is interesting because it addresses the race issue, though a little different than some of the videos we've seen from the mccain/palin side. Guest on Bill Cunningham's show Rev. Jesse Jackson Peterson spoke about how black people are racist, siting the example of Colin Powell who must have simply endorsed Obama simply because he is black. And that may have had something to do with his endorsement, but why does that always have to be the major focus. Couldn't Powell have seen, from the inside, the republican candidacy and perhaps think we need a democrat to change it? I mean it doesnt have to be becasue of race. Peterson goes on to discuss how Obama will make America a socialist country and that's all that blacks want: to rely on the government becasue they dont want to work. Generalization a little?? Sure he said most, not all.. most, but still that is pretty harsh, because I know there are a lot of white people who wont get up off their lazy bums. And then Peterson talks about abortion and how Obama and Powell support abortion. I dont really want to get into that too much here, but it reminds me of the debate when Mccain kept using the word "pro-abortion." now i dont know one person who is pro-abortion. Pro-choice, a womens' right to choose etc. I know race is inevitably going to be a factor in this election, but can someone choose a candidate for issues over race, or dislike a candidate over issues rather than race. Its heartbreaking to see the videos we saw in class, the hatred. I guess America hasnt come as far as we all thought.

leaving out info.

an article from media matters claims that the Wall Street Journal left out information when claiming that ACORN submitted false voter registrations. The article failed to leave out the fact that in 9 of the 11 states mentioned in the article, had to submit ALL forms received, even if they looked false or duplicate. So really, how can they accuse an organization without displaying all the facts. It's like they left out information in order to have an argument and an article. When in reality, the claims cannot really be made since it was a requirement to send all forms received. It just seems that a well-known, credible paper would write responsibly and tell all information, especially when citing accusations of organization like ACORN doing something bad. Shouldn't the journalists be telling all of the information? isnt that their job?

decision 08 myspace.

the myspace for msnbc Decision '08.. a place where everyday americans can post their feelings about support for candidates.. a lot about opening debates to third parties, and bashing people for their support. But really.. how effective are these kinds of sites? do they really matter? will they change anything? I think it's good to have a myspace for people to discuss issues, but they dont discuss issues. People just rant about silly things, bash other comments and really dont make a difference. Maybe its becasue I look at it, and know they are not credible sources. These people are just saying how they feel, with nothing really to back it up. I dont know, but i think its all on the same line as facebooks for candidates. Sure, they can have so many friends in hopes of keeping people interested, but does it really work? Will the voters numbers increase this election? We will have to see..

failing to report it all..

This article from media matters states that the CBS Evening News, Fox news the LiveDesk, and Politico all noted Cindy McCain's attack on Obama stating that he did not vote for more funding for troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. She commented that he didnt vote for mroe funding while her son was serving over there. However, all of these news station failed to provide the fact that John Mccain did not vote for more funding either. Although the candidates voted against the funding for different reasons, Obama for the lack of timetable for troops, and mccain for the troop withdrawl within the bill, either way, both are "guilty" of not wanting more funding for the troops.

As journalists, we are supposed to report the truths of what we know, and cannot be biased. yes, Cindy mccain did not bring up the fact that he husband didnt vote to fund her son, but that isnt her job, she is trying to get her husband elected. Journalists, however, are supposed to report all of the information, as balanced and objective as they can. Whether they meet this or not, if information is known, they should report on it. And find out more information through investigating. News organizations cant just report on what they hear from cindy mccain, without telling both sides and balancing the story. cindy's response is not the news aspect of the story, the news aspect is reporting that both candidates have voted against the funding bill.. and why.

they did say something...

MSNBC did call out mccain in his associations.. just as everyone has been calling out Obama's with Bill Ayers.. They said mccain was a board member with bouscaren who was an activist for white supremacy, and mccain got endorsements recently from the widow of Annanburg, the man who created the project ayers and obama served for. See... obama isnt the only one who has associations.. and quite frankly who isnt in politics associated with someone that is not perfect and can be thrown in their face. Not every politician is completly clean of everything.. they are human and things that do happen in the past may not even be relevant today. And i think its ok to bring them up, but dont be one sided about it. I'm glad MSNBC did focus on some mccain associations, cuz all we have been hearing about is Obama.. whether or not i side either way, if they bring it, tell it about both candidates.

oops..

I said Michael Ayers.. and well.. that was totally a mistake.. i dont know what i was thinking when i wrote that.. and so. i correct myself.. and say.. William Ayers.. :)

failing to tell all..

A Media Matters article spills about the fact that Obama is getting all sorts of coverage about his associations with Michael Ayers, yet fails to mention McCain's "own Bill Ayers"--G. Gorden Liddy, who was a convicted Watergate burglar. Now isnt that bizarre? I mean if Obama needs to face the up to questions about his relationship with AYers, shouldnt McCain? I mean we could get into the whole dispute about the relativity of Ayers to Obama and how long ago etc., but I think Liddy is a pretty important factor as well. Watergate was a huge issue and to be associated with one of the burglars in it.. is pretty big news and should be addressed. yet it wasnt even mentioned! I had no idea, and not that it changes my mind at all as a viewer, voter etc, if Obama is accused of his relationships, why isnt McCain??

the Vp debate.

i think the VP debate was much better than the first presidential debate. i think that both candidates did pretty well. The questions were good and it did open them up for discussion. I was not all that impressed with Palin. yes, as the coverage afterwords said, she did well and didnt fall on gher face, which was good. Except, that bothers me. I mean, when the expectations were nothing, how could she not fulfill that. She was really shaky at first and I thought she was going to be a lot worse, however, she wasnt all that great. She went around the questions frequently, almsot having her own agenda and talking points. And maybe it was becasue she didnt know how to answer the questions or just wanted to make the same campiagn points. Either way, it was bothersome and I really was not too impressed.

Biden, on the other hand, i thought was amazing. I had never really heard him. he was over-shadowed by the Palin buzz, but i was completly impressed. He not only answered all of the questions qith complete, full, statistical and realistic responses, but had a conversational appeal and really just impressed me. He is sop smart and has all the experience to balance Obama out. I really liked when they were talking about Healthcare and palin was going on about her and mccain's healthcare plan and giving the American people back $5,000 rather than raising taxes as she says Obama will do. When Biden responded by explaining how they are goingt o fund the $5,000 to everyone and taxing the healthcare pofessionals, he said at the end..."Now that's a bridge to nowhere." That was just like ZINGGG. haha. He said a few things like that, and it made an impression.

Overall, i think it was an easier debate to understand. The pres. debate went into the nitty gritty of all the war and what happened, what shoulda and coulda. And i think they need to focus on more of now and future. I'm looking forward to the next debate.