More on Questionable Associations

Although I have come to consider myself a supporter of Senator Obama, all the attention that was given to his associations with Bill Ayers and especially Reverend Jeremiah Wright has really forced me to question his judgment of character. As a member of the same church for over 20 years, doesn't it seem highly improbable that Obama would be completely ignorant to Reverend Wright's incendiary anti-American and anti-semitic beliefs? If he was blind to Wright's sentiments, what does this say about his intellect if he still doesn't know a person after 20 years of relations or his judgment if he chooses to surround himself with people of whom he knows so little about? What's more troubling to consider if he DID know how Reverend Wright felt about American racial relations, its role in 9/11 and terrorism, and his stance on Israel. If he chose to participate in a congregation under the guidance of a figure with such radical beliefs, does this mean that Obama, himself, takes the same stance on these issues? Does this mean that Obama believes that the US is responsible for 9/11 or that we should recite "God Damn America"? Is this the sort of change that Obama is implying when he calls for "change we can believe in"?
When choosing the next President of the United States and leader of the free world, I want to know that the person I am selecting has superb judgment when it comes to evaluating character. As the person with the ability to select a Supreme Court Justice, I want to know that the President has the ability to assess the personality, ideals and history of a candidate to determine whether he or she will make judgments in accordance to the public's sentiments and not act in a way that will drastically disrupt the status quo. I want to know that he or she has the ability to determine when retaliation is needed and when a more peaceful process is needed (cough, cough, George W. Bush) I need to know that my President won’t be a tactical liability.
I know about the powerful influence of the media and its ability to instill images that create doubt, fear and uncertainty. I know that news stories are framed and that mass media is inherently biased by its very nature. I know how the media acts as a socializing medium that maintains the status quo and keeps financial and political power in the hands of a small group of people and I know how people selectively interpret the information they receive. Despite this, I still find myself asking the questions that Obama’s opponents want me to ask even though I know they are achieving their goal with my doing so.

While I consider myself highly attuned to my own attitudes and feelings and the social influences that influence them, I cannot escape these doubts. As a result, I am afraid for those who are less self-aware and thus, more prone to the persuasive effects that the media helps to produce.

Questionable Associations

On the surface, it may appear that federal inmate, Willie Horton, Reverend Jeremiah Wright and University of Illinois- Chicago Professor William Ayers are completely different people who share very little in common. After reading K.H. Jamieson's Dirty Politics: Deception, Distortion and Democracy, however, there appears to be more similarities between these three men than initially meets the eye. When running for political office, especially for President of the United States, you had better hope that that all your skeletons are permanently buried in your closet. As a public figure with the potential to represent the interests of the masses, all information regarding your past is fair game for the media and your opponents, regardless of whether you think it is relevant to your ability to assume the responsibilities of that particular political position or not.

To emphasize this point, one can analyze the relationship between Massachusetts Governor and 1988 Democratic candidate, Michael Dukakis and convicted murderer and rapist, Willie Horton. As Governor of Massachusetts, Dukakis supported a furlough program that allowed criminals to leave prison and reenter the public for a short period of time. Although Dukakis stated the furlough program was 99% percent effective in the effort to rehabilitate criminals, it was this program that ultimately cost him the 1988 Presidential Election since, while on a weekend furlough, an inmate named Willie Horton viciously raped and assaulted a couple in Maryland. It was this isolated event that gave Republican candidate, George H.W. Bush the ammunition he needed to question Dukakis’s character and use media outlets to distort public perception and ultimately find his way to the Oval Office. By exploiting media’s coverage of the Horton case, Bush was able to doubt Dukakis’s character and utilize powerful imagery and persuasive discourse to instill a sense of fear in the public when considering the possibility of a Dukakis led nation.

When looking at the current Presidential election, it was only a matter of time before one of the candidates dug up questionable actions and associations of their opponent’s past. While Barack Obama could have mentioned John McCain’s role in the Keating 5 scandal to a much greater degree, it appears that Obama has tried to stay “above the fray” throughout the Presidential campaign while McCain and the Republican camp have focused much more effort on employing similar smear tactics to those used by George H.W. Bush in 1988.

Like Willie Horton, William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright have been used in recent politics to discredit a candidate’s character and legitimacy. William Ayers spent 10 years as a fugitive in the 1970s when he was part of the "Weather Underground," an anti-Vietnam War group that protested U.S. policies by bombing the Pentagon, U.S. Capitol and a string of other government buildings. Having avoided prison time, Ayers now lives in Chicago where he went on to work with a young Barack Obama on community oriented projects and host an Obama attended fundraiser to support Obama’s candidacy for the Illinois State Senate. Reverend Jeremiah Wright has been Barack Obama’s pastor for the past 20 years and has played a large role in Obama’s life. He married Obama to his wife, baptized his two daughters and is even credited for coining the phrase, “the audacity of hope”, which is the title of Obama’s most recent book. However, Wright has come under fire in the past year for his inflammatory comments concerning America, racial relations, Israel and 9/11.

Because of the seditiousness of their past actions and their associations with Barack Obama, Ayers and Wright are both being used in a similar fashion to Willie Horton in that they have both been thrust into political discourse to associate public senses of doubt and fear with a particular political candidate. While John McCain has tried to use these men to support his cause and has used television commercials and powerful imagery to do so, it does not appear that the strategy that worked so well for Bush in ’88 is finding equal success for today given McCain’s current position behind Obama in the polls. Although there is no way of verifying the exact reason why this is the case, the differences between the political and economic atmospheres of 1988 and 2008 clearly play an important role in explaining why successful strategies of the past are now being met with failure.




http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/902213,CST-NWS-ayers18.article
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788

An Open Discussion on News and Media Ownership

How could anything that follows the Simpsons or Seinfeld not be considered a form of entertainment? If you were to watch your nightly news tonight, what types of stories would you see? If you're watching a major channel at either 5 or 10/11 o'clock, you'd see story after story on murders, rapes, assaults, muggings, terror and then a little fluff piece centering around something like the world's biggest pumpkin pie or a cat being rescued from a well. If you watched a national or cable newscast, the stories would be similar, just projected on a much grander scale. How could these stories really be considered newsworthy?
As mentioned in class, 8 corporations control the world's media. 8! When ownership is consolidated into so few hands, it seems impossible for us (the masses) to receive any information that isn't framed and filtered. To safeguard their interests and maximize their profits, the news has become a socializing device of the media institutions that is designed to elicit emotions and protect the status quo, not to truly inform the public. By focusing on emotions over the facts, news organizations ensure that audiences will come back again and again to be entertained and their positions in society will be protected.
On the broader issue of the media as a whole and their control of television, radio and online news, I do have my own personal opinions that you may agree or disagree with. Before I delve further into what I think about media ownership and the dissemination of information, however, I would like to ask you, the reader, what you think would happen if the ownership of media outlets were to suddenly change from its current consolidated state to one that consists of far more owners. Do you think that media institutions would provide more unframed, unfiltered information that would focus solely on informing the public? Do you think that this information would be completely unbiased? What would the overall impact be on society?

Overcoming Adversity

What makes a person truly qualified to be the next President of the United States? Is it their record of achievement and the issues they’ve tackled as a politician? Is it their pedigree? Or is it the personal obstacles they’ve overcome en route to success? Of late, it appears that most Presidential hopefuls have emphasized their perseverance and have done all in their power to use the media to minimize the public’s knowledge of their positions on certain issues. While some may cry that this may keep the public ignorant and prevent them from selecting a candidate who will advocate their personal interests, the overwhelming emphasis on triumphing in the face of adversity is exactly what allows the American people to relate to the people.


Everyone has had to overcome some sort of obstacle to get where they are today. Handouts and freebies are rare in this world, are regardless of who you are, chances are that if you have achieved any level of success, you have had to learn how to bypass the impediments to your prosperity. Because of this, it would only seem natural for a politician to construct their personal narrative around their own personal triumphs in the face of adversity. Not only does this create a level playing field between themselves and the masses, it facilitates a relationship between the two where the people can relate to their leaders based solely on their inherent struggles. Nothing seems more dramatic than overcoming adversity and by appealing to each person’s emotions and flare for the dramatic, candidates are able to knockdown barriers to their ability to be seen as a man/woman of the people.


Some critics have asserted that the political use of narrative has diverted attention away from the key issues at hand. While this may or may not be true, when selecting a leader, nothing is more important than discovering which candidate has the best ability to lead in the toughest of situations. Yes, one candidate may have stronger sentiments or a safer plan in regards to one issue, but does that really matter if that person can’t provide assurance and guidance when they are needed most? By overcoming adversity in the past, a candidate shows that he or she will be able to learn from their experiences and overcome a new set of obstacles the future. While issues and ideals are significant, the key issues facing a country seemingly change from day to day. Rather than finding a candidate that can merely discuss the issues, we need to select one that can deal with the everyday challenges associated with these issues in the order of magnitude in which they come about.

Where Do I Go From Here?: Obama and Off-Shore Drilling

As one who has been leaning towards voting for Barack Obama in the presidential election since it became clear that he would receive the Democratic nod, I was a little surprised to learn that he changed his position on tapping into America's domestic oil reserves. While I cannot remember whether my perception of his desire to resist this temptation was formed through listening to others speak or through outlets in the media, I do know that I formed my support for Obama based on his resistance to drilling off our shores.

  My own personal resistance to off-shore drilling is based on the simple economic principles of supply and demand and the fact that oil is finite resource. Environmental Scientists, including Professor Dork Sahagian of Lehigh University, believe that oil is a resource that will be completely exploited by 2020-2050. It is because of this that I reject the premise of presently employing domestic oil reserves to lower the high price of gas and transportation. If we as a country increase the use our own oil to satisfy the demand for lower gas prices now, we risk exploiting our supply before a seamless transition can be made to renewable energy sources. If this were to occur, we would inevitably be forced to pay an even greater premium for foreign oil than we do now in order to satisfy our demand. In other words, actions taken to lower present fuel costs could force us to pay much more for our fuel sometime in the near future. Although I can see how an increase in the use of American oil may be tempting, actions such as off-shore drilling are dangerous and will not only put us at the mercy of foreign suppliers, but will put a far more severe strain on the US economy as well.

What I find most alarming about Obama's switch to supporting off-shore drilling is not the fact that he flip-flopped; politicians do this all the time (especially when 80% of Americans in fact support the issue at hand). I am most unnerved by the fact that I still support Obama for President! When choosing who to support for President, I tried to go about it as rationally as possible. I read up on the issues, listened to speeches, and researched backgrounds in an attempt to make the most informed decision possible based on my own beliefs and ideas on where the country should go in the next four years. Before I finally did choose to support Obama, his position on the issue of off-shore drilling was one that made me feel that he possessed economic ideals parallel to my own and that he possessed the intelligence and ability to revamp our economy.

Cognitive dissonance occurs naturally whenever a person holds two contradictory beliefs, but I never expected to have such a feeling in reference to a Presidential candidate. In hindsight, some degree of dissonance was to be expected upon my discovery that Barack Obama no longer rejected the idea of offshore drilling. Although the issue is an important one to me, I have recently been finding myself downplaying the issue's importance and trying to find ways to reduce my anxiety. While dissonance reduction was discussed in class and I know that I should know better, I still feel that I should support Obama.  Of late, I have tried to denounce my pro-Obama stance and have even tried to garner my support for John McCain, but I still find myself  rationalizing an innate support for Obama by placing greater emphasis on some of the other issues that led me to his camp in the first place. Whether 

The concept of change is one that has brought Barack Obama to national prominence and one that may him take him right through the doors of the White House. As a now reluctant and frustrated supporter for Obama, I thought that his beliefs on change pertained to the direction of our country and the methods of our government. Never did it occur to that his ideas of change concerned his stance on issues that I found most fundamental. When I place my vote in November, I will now be forced to consider myself a liar or a fool. If I vote for McCain, I am lying to myself about my suppressed support for Obama. If I vote for Obama, I am the fool who votes for a candidate who gained my support by taking a desirable stance on an issue, only to change course when the winds of public opinion turned in the opposite direction. Although I can only assume that Obama perceived that most people would continue to support him despite his complete 180 on the issue, I feel as if he has abandoned me without any sense of where to go (and who to trust) next.

Change: Part 1

Change can mean a lot of things. To the optimist, change implies progress, innovation, and movement away from the status quo. It generates a sentiment that the grass will indeed be greener on the other side. To the cynic or one of a more static nature, however, change is far more ominous.  It forecasts a journey into unknown territory where danger and uncertainty will lurk around every corner.   Whether you are an optimist or a pessimist, however, it seems clear that  the concept of change is one of the key issues of the 2008 Presidential contest between Barack Obama and John McCain. While both are qualified to run this country, the United States is in a perceived position of turmoil where our next President will be chosen based on how the two address this concept and how the voting public responds to their ideas. 

Although John McCain has tried, I can easily say that there has never been a candidate in my time that has stood for change more than Senator Barack Obama. To gain the momentum needed to seriously contend for the Executive seat, Obama has constructed the narrative that he is the sole advocate for change and that only he possesses the vision and determination to guide America toward the change that is so needs. With slogans such as "Change We Can Believe In" and "The Change We Need", Obama conveys the image  that, as a minority candidate, he understands that most Americans are the optimists described above who want a different breed of Executive to guide their country on a different path away from the bipartisanship and poor decision making that have plagued our country in the recent past.

To counteract the momentum gained by Obama as the candidate for change, Senator John McCain has done as everything in his power to construct a counternarrative that champions him as the voice of change. Although not an easy sell considering he still supports the war in Iraq and  has voted with along the lines  of  a President with 30% approval ratings on nearly 90% legislation, through his selection of Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate, John McCain has provided evidence that he is more against the norms of the GOP than originally perceived. Through Palin, McCain is able to market himself to a much wider audience and attract those voters who would have voted for Senator Hillary Clinton simply because she was a woman. Besides appealing to new voters, McCain has also created the potential to steal votes from voters who supported Obama simply because of his presence as a minority on such a large, national stage. 

The 2008 Presidential Election is one that will go down in history as being one of the most important and closely contested elections of our time. The people of the United States are calling for a brand of change that could take our country to depths that it has never reached. While both candidates are trying to create the image that he is the true crusader of change, only time will tell who will win the Presidency and the resultant change that will ensue.