Understanding Media Studies
Eli F. Bleich
Academic Plan:
One of the first things I learned along my professional career path was to go slow. And I think I’ll take that lesson along with me into my academic career. I’m not in a hurry to get anywhere.
Taking time to discover ‘things’… or letting those ‘things’ discover me… has always brought me the most joy in life. It’s the journey…not the destination… that counts.
This semester has exposed me (once again) to the rigors (and rigidity) of academic structure. But it has also exposed me to the opportunities that go along with that approach. It has certainly been interesting to meet many members of the faculty, along with many of my fellow colleagues. I have formed some opinions as to which members of the faculty I would like to study further with, as they seem to have something of interest to offer (at least to me).
While my background has been predominantly focused around politics and propaganda, there are other areas of study that I plan to pursue as well. The study of a foreign language like Spanish, for example, would seem useful for me in the pursuit of my goals… particularly in Latin America.
Other languages that I need to learn are those of all the newer technologies. Therefore, it seems that a number of classes in those disciplines will certainly need to be included in my studies.
At the heart of my study lies an interest in the role of the media in revolution (both violent, and non-violent). I'd like to take a closer look at how the application of different messages in different media affects the outcome of revolution, and compare outcomes in similar…and/or different situations.
Then I'd like to develop a media plan for revolution (based on historical experience), and see if it can be applied successfully in a real life situation.
While I am primarily interested in applying these methods in revolutionary situations like Spain’s conflict with the Basque (ETA), or the longstanding Israeli Palestinian state of affairs, or the IRA struggle against the British, or Columbia and the FARC and Peru and the Shining Path, or even Afghanistan (with the US) against the Taliban and Al Qaeda… even in non-violent revolutionary situations like Chavez’ Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela and the Anti-Chavez faction… how various media techniques are applied in support of…or in suppression of revolution… would be central to my study.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Political Communication 6794
Eli F. Bleich
Journal Entries 11-14 – 12-4
The elections in Venezuela exposed a major problem for Chavez. Districts he should have won, he did not.
Included in those districts that did not support Chavista candidates, were many urban environments, where Chavez’s policies of support of the poor should have carried the day. Yet even among these heavily Chavez populated areas, the poor are beginning to abandon… or at least begin to question… the revolution.
Chavez, now 2 years into his second term (4 years to go) having suffered this defeat immediately on the heals of having also lost the constitutional referendum (which would have allowed Chavez to remain in power for life) will only serve to prepare him for the battle ahead, as there is no doubt that Chavez will not relinquish power at the end of his term. It is just a matter of how he will have to go about retaining that power.
When Castro took power in Cuba, he immediately took control of the media and clamped down on any opposition messages. This was relatively easy to do, since there was not any history of a free media to start with. Chavez has had to attack the media (as opposition) from a different angle… clamping down and/or closing Globovision, Venevision, RCTV, Univeral, El Nacional, and Tal Cual (among others) through powers granted him by the National Assembly (100% controlled by Chavez at the time of his re-election) which made it possible for him to close any media source critical of himself as president.
He has done this very effectively; leaving just enough token opposition to make it appear that there is really still freedom of the press. In truth this is not the case, as everyone in Venezuela is afraid to oppose him at this time.
Chavez makes the mistake however of trying to tread too cautiously against the media, in contrast to Castro, who did not care what people thought about his actions in that regard. Castro is the more Machiavellian of the two… and the more successful. But Chavez is a quick study.
His recent electoral loses will certainly convince him of that, and we will certainly see far more curtailment of the media… other than for disseminating his own message… going forward.
Given the outcome of these two election defeats… following his own re-election success… Chavez will soon disregard any semblance of regard for any opposition, and simply shut it all down.
Eli F. Bleich
Journal Entries 11-14 – 12-4
The elections in Venezuela exposed a major problem for Chavez. Districts he should have won, he did not.
Included in those districts that did not support Chavista candidates, were many urban environments, where Chavez’s policies of support of the poor should have carried the day. Yet even among these heavily Chavez populated areas, the poor are beginning to abandon… or at least begin to question… the revolution.
Chavez, now 2 years into his second term (4 years to go) having suffered this defeat immediately on the heals of having also lost the constitutional referendum (which would have allowed Chavez to remain in power for life) will only serve to prepare him for the battle ahead, as there is no doubt that Chavez will not relinquish power at the end of his term. It is just a matter of how he will have to go about retaining that power.
When Castro took power in Cuba, he immediately took control of the media and clamped down on any opposition messages. This was relatively easy to do, since there was not any history of a free media to start with. Chavez has had to attack the media (as opposition) from a different angle… clamping down and/or closing Globovision, Venevision, RCTV, Univeral, El Nacional, and Tal Cual (among others) through powers granted him by the National Assembly (100% controlled by Chavez at the time of his re-election) which made it possible for him to close any media source critical of himself as president.
He has done this very effectively; leaving just enough token opposition to make it appear that there is really still freedom of the press. In truth this is not the case, as everyone in Venezuela is afraid to oppose him at this time.
Chavez makes the mistake however of trying to tread too cautiously against the media, in contrast to Castro, who did not care what people thought about his actions in that regard. Castro is the more Machiavellian of the two… and the more successful. But Chavez is a quick study.
His recent electoral loses will certainly convince him of that, and we will certainly see far more curtailment of the media… other than for disseminating his own message… going forward.
Given the outcome of these two election defeats… following his own re-election success… Chavez will soon disregard any semblance of regard for any opposition, and simply shut it all down.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Political Communication 6794
Eli F. Bleich
Journal Entries 11-7 – 11-13
In politics, we always play to our strength.
It takes a s much hard work (actually more) and money to Change someone’s mind, as it does to Convince someone already inclined to you point of view to vote.
And the size does matter too.
So if there is a pool of 100 people who might be inclined to vote for you, and only 10 people inclined to vote against you (whose minds are changeable), in real numbers this means that an increase of 10% amongst 100 people who are on your side equals 10 votes, whereas and increase in votes among only 10 people whose minds you have to change, only equals 1.
Looking at the election (and yes, I understand that it is historic how many people were willing to vote for an African American) and comparing it to the Bush Kerry election, this principal jumps out about the African American vote. The number of Blacks actually voting increased by more than 20%, and the percentage of Blacks voting for a Democrat increased from 78% to nearly 98%.
Those numbers translate to an overwhelming win for Kerry, had everything else been equal except for the number… and percentage… of votes among the African American community going to a Democrat.
It was the Black vote that, after all is said and done, delivered the Presidency to Obama. Nothing else mattered.
We are also told that a majority of voters over 60 voted for Mc Cain, and that as the electorate got younger, the percentage shifted toward Obama… attributed to the idea that older people hold more prejudice, and that younger generations are more color blind.
But I wonder if this is true… or if people become more prejudice AS they get older. Impossible to measure anymore as it might relate to voting, I think. We all know that people get more conservative as they get older, but I would like to do some research to find out if people become more… or less… prejudice in general, as they get older too..
Eli F. Bleich
Journal Entries 11-7 – 11-13
In politics, we always play to our strength.
It takes a s much hard work (actually more) and money to Change someone’s mind, as it does to Convince someone already inclined to you point of view to vote.
And the size does matter too.
So if there is a pool of 100 people who might be inclined to vote for you, and only 10 people inclined to vote against you (whose minds are changeable), in real numbers this means that an increase of 10% amongst 100 people who are on your side equals 10 votes, whereas and increase in votes among only 10 people whose minds you have to change, only equals 1.
Looking at the election (and yes, I understand that it is historic how many people were willing to vote for an African American) and comparing it to the Bush Kerry election, this principal jumps out about the African American vote. The number of Blacks actually voting increased by more than 20%, and the percentage of Blacks voting for a Democrat increased from 78% to nearly 98%.
Those numbers translate to an overwhelming win for Kerry, had everything else been equal except for the number… and percentage… of votes among the African American community going to a Democrat.
It was the Black vote that, after all is said and done, delivered the Presidency to Obama. Nothing else mattered.
We are also told that a majority of voters over 60 voted for Mc Cain, and that as the electorate got younger, the percentage shifted toward Obama… attributed to the idea that older people hold more prejudice, and that younger generations are more color blind.
But I wonder if this is true… or if people become more prejudice AS they get older. Impossible to measure anymore as it might relate to voting, I think. We all know that people get more conservative as they get older, but I would like to do some research to find out if people become more… or less… prejudice in general, as they get older too..
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Political Communication 6794
Eli F. Bleich
Journal Entries 10-17 – 10-29
Even inside the Republican Party, spokespeople refer to their party as a “Brand”
It will be interesting to see how the fight for the heart and soul of the party unfolds between the Fiscal Conservatives (as represented by the Bobby Jendal and Tim Palenty part of the party) and the Social Conservatives (as represented by Sara Palin). This will be an interesting struggle between these forces for ‘Branding’ rights that I’d like to follow over the next three to four years.
Finally, the Republicans have found a message, and have stayed on it. It is the Economy (stupid). Since it seems to be working for the Democrats, they have simply co-opted it as their own.
It’s also interesting to hear them simply lie (big lie theory again… keep saying it, and people will soon believe it’s true) about Obama by saying “He will raise YOUR taxes”. And stay on it.
I think it is working.
Also, Palin’s speech on Energy was her best. Well delivered. It showed her as knowledgeable, authoritative, and capable. I wonder who wrote it (same person as the convention speech… or did she write it herself)?
The domocrats are nervous. They have peaked just a few days early (Vote early), and have a long history of not quite making it to the finish line.
Obama does not need Ohio, Virginia, Florida, or Missouri. He only needs New Hampshire and Colorado (assuming he keeps PA). Campaigning in all those other states is perhaps meant only to keep McCain on defense. If he wins New Hampshire by more than 6 points… he will win Colorado and the election.
If he wins NH by more than 8 points, he will sweep all those other states.
Eli F. Bleich
Journal Entries 10-17 – 10-29
Even inside the Republican Party, spokespeople refer to their party as a “Brand”
It will be interesting to see how the fight for the heart and soul of the party unfolds between the Fiscal Conservatives (as represented by the Bobby Jendal and Tim Palenty part of the party) and the Social Conservatives (as represented by Sara Palin). This will be an interesting struggle between these forces for ‘Branding’ rights that I’d like to follow over the next three to four years.
Finally, the Republicans have found a message, and have stayed on it. It is the Economy (stupid). Since it seems to be working for the Democrats, they have simply co-opted it as their own.
It’s also interesting to hear them simply lie (big lie theory again… keep saying it, and people will soon believe it’s true) about Obama by saying “He will raise YOUR taxes”. And stay on it.
I think it is working.
Also, Palin’s speech on Energy was her best. Well delivered. It showed her as knowledgeable, authoritative, and capable. I wonder who wrote it (same person as the convention speech… or did she write it herself)?
The domocrats are nervous. They have peaked just a few days early (Vote early), and have a long history of not quite making it to the finish line.
Obama does not need Ohio, Virginia, Florida, or Missouri. He only needs New Hampshire and Colorado (assuming he keeps PA). Campaigning in all those other states is perhaps meant only to keep McCain on defense. If he wins New Hampshire by more than 6 points… he will win Colorado and the election.
If he wins NH by more than 8 points, he will sweep all those other states.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Political Communication 6794
Eli F. Bleich
Journal Entries 10-3 – 10-16
Information feedback, leads to the influence of information.
It says to people that “It’s OK to ‘think’ that way.” Showing people polling results, tells them where they need to be, to be a part of the mainstream. It also tells them that they will not be there alone.
Pundits tend to analyze an event like a debate (actually pretty well… especially if they are not simply working for one of the campaigns), which should influence (lead) what people think… but…
Expert interpretation doesn’t seem to be influencing focus groups (Is it because focus groups have been polled BEFORE they hear what pundits have to say?)
Then, once the Pundits hear what the people have said, they start discussing those results and begin to analyze the results, instead of the contest. They fall behind the curve, and begin to follow the people (it’s a reverse influence), and start telling the audience why they agree with them.
Two arenas for discussion. Viewers… Pundits.
Debates reinforce perceptions of people already decided. Little effect on others (just don’t loose)
The Swift Boat effect
The campaign is never better than the candidate, but in this case, the candidate is actually better than the campaign.
The campaign of distraction and negative message really doesn’t fit McCain. He got stuck with it when he capitulated to the republican mainstream. Even in 2004, when he caved to the party and agreed to wait his turn as a loyal member (This is in keeping with his not leaving Vietnam before those ahead of him).
Attacks (so far) don’t seem to be working (not because people are not as susceptible as usual), but perhaps because it has been properly ‘framed’ by the Obama campaign this time.
McCain interrupted Obama several times (appeared rude… wouldn’t let him finish)
Went on too long (say what you think and stop).
If tone continues dominating the race. Obama wins
It has been the campaign strategy to raise fear and doubt, but McCain (personally) just can’t do it! When McCain refuted the people who talked about Obama as dangerous… or Muslim… he gained stature. I give him credit for that, and think many watching did too.
The Bradley effect dealt with exit polls of undecided voters, not committed voters. There was a very large number of them. What it shows, if anything, is where the racist vote parks itself. Undecideds generally break the same as the rest of the population, however in the case of hidden factors (like race) they generally break 2 or 3:1 against the hidden factor.
In this election, the undecided vote has shrunk to less than 6% in most key states.
Top number counts.
Take the top number, subtract ½ %, then add 30% of the undecided vote = winner. (If Obama goes into the election with 48.7 % or more, he will win.) Obama now stands at roughly 50% with little time (and no major events scheduled) to change that number.
However, life always has a way of interfering with the future.
If Obama can take New Hampshire and Colorado, he wins.
Virginia, Ohio, etc, don’t matter. If Obama wins those states, it will be because the entire country has ‘trended there’ in other words, his overall support will spill over. But if you want to concentrate on the states that are truly important, those two are where all their effort should be focused.
If he wins, he will either win with 273 electoral votes, or overwhelmingly. Nothing in between.
People always talk about how much is spent in a campaign, but no voter ever cares. It’s the message that they receive as a result of the spending that counts. Period.
Question: Why do people end up voting for the “wrong” person… the candidate not in their own best interest?
Eli F. Bleich
Journal Entries 10-3 – 10-16
Information feedback, leads to the influence of information.
It says to people that “It’s OK to ‘think’ that way.” Showing people polling results, tells them where they need to be, to be a part of the mainstream. It also tells them that they will not be there alone.
Pundits tend to analyze an event like a debate (actually pretty well… especially if they are not simply working for one of the campaigns), which should influence (lead) what people think… but…
Expert interpretation doesn’t seem to be influencing focus groups (Is it because focus groups have been polled BEFORE they hear what pundits have to say?)
Then, once the Pundits hear what the people have said, they start discussing those results and begin to analyze the results, instead of the contest. They fall behind the curve, and begin to follow the people (it’s a reverse influence), and start telling the audience why they agree with them.
Two arenas for discussion. Viewers… Pundits.
Debates reinforce perceptions of people already decided. Little effect on others (just don’t loose)
The Swift Boat effect
The campaign is never better than the candidate, but in this case, the candidate is actually better than the campaign.
The campaign of distraction and negative message really doesn’t fit McCain. He got stuck with it when he capitulated to the republican mainstream. Even in 2004, when he caved to the party and agreed to wait his turn as a loyal member (This is in keeping with his not leaving Vietnam before those ahead of him).
Attacks (so far) don’t seem to be working (not because people are not as susceptible as usual), but perhaps because it has been properly ‘framed’ by the Obama campaign this time.
McCain interrupted Obama several times (appeared rude… wouldn’t let him finish)
Went on too long (say what you think and stop).
If tone continues dominating the race. Obama wins
It has been the campaign strategy to raise fear and doubt, but McCain (personally) just can’t do it! When McCain refuted the people who talked about Obama as dangerous… or Muslim… he gained stature. I give him credit for that, and think many watching did too.
The Bradley effect dealt with exit polls of undecided voters, not committed voters. There was a very large number of them. What it shows, if anything, is where the racist vote parks itself. Undecideds generally break the same as the rest of the population, however in the case of hidden factors (like race) they generally break 2 or 3:1 against the hidden factor.
In this election, the undecided vote has shrunk to less than 6% in most key states.
Top number counts.
Take the top number, subtract ½ %, then add 30% of the undecided vote = winner. (If Obama goes into the election with 48.7 % or more, he will win.) Obama now stands at roughly 50% with little time (and no major events scheduled) to change that number.
However, life always has a way of interfering with the future.
If Obama can take New Hampshire and Colorado, he wins.
Virginia, Ohio, etc, don’t matter. If Obama wins those states, it will be because the entire country has ‘trended there’ in other words, his overall support will spill over. But if you want to concentrate on the states that are truly important, those two are where all their effort should be focused.
If he wins, he will either win with 273 electoral votes, or overwhelmingly. Nothing in between.
People always talk about how much is spent in a campaign, but no voter ever cares. It’s the message that they receive as a result of the spending that counts. Period.
Question: Why do people end up voting for the “wrong” person… the candidate not in their own best interest?
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Political Communication
9-25 – 10-2
On the Debate
Foreign Affairs issues were avoided because of financial events coming to the forefront.
Little focus was put on the question/issue of Obama as Commander in Chief in comparison to McCain.
For what there was, both listed names and places as proof of their understanding of international affairs. Therefore Obama wins for not loosing.
McCain often seemed demeaning to Obama…and angry. Obama always seemed to be in control
The group with whom I watched the debate did not see any of the run-up (we viewed a documentary about the history of debates produced by Jim Trengrove (of the News Hour), and then turned off the television immediately to talk among ourselves.
So we watched the debate absent of any spin (of course through the eyes of a mostly liberal audience however) but their impression too, was that Obama won for not loosing.
When McCain talked about Obama’s reaction to the Russian invasion of Georgia, he attacked him for being too slow to act, his statement was that Obama’s “first reaction was to tell both sides to cease hostilities”. His implication was that Obama was unsure of what to do and not decisive. The audience take on this was that that was the first thing that should be done… and that McCain seemed to think that everything should be answered militarily… even before you know what’s really going on. They thought that this was a dangerous approach.
Audience saw McCain as ‘shooting from the hip’… Obama as more ‘statesman like’
All thought that Obama looked like a President… and (since there wasn’t much talk about military issues) had passed the ‘Commander in Chief’ bar.
On the Financial Crises
McCain acted quickly (and often erratically) in an attempt to take control of the dialogue and the leadership role (have Obama respond to him, instead of vice versa). This of course backfired with his announcement of suspending his campaign and threatening to not participate in the debate.
It was a Presidential ploy… something a President would do in a national emergency. There was only one problem… McCain is NOT president.
Obama waited (he does this all the time) and acted in a slower and more considered manner (consistent with his trying to project the image as a reasoned, statesmanlike leader)
Both are on the wrong side of the public on the rescue plan, but neither wants to take a position in opposition to the other… even though both probably think the plan is bad.
Politically better to both be on the same side (looking at the polls as to who’s on each side in the public, and it’s mixed… potentially negative for both candidates… so they are not going to polarize the voters they need by taking one side or the other). This is all very politically safe… but also cowardly.
It’s also VERY complicated, and due to the way in which it was first presented to the public (by Paulson) not easily explainable.
Obama campaign has taken back the argument (by luck) with the attention shifting to Domestic issues and the Economy.
I do not think however, that Obama is moving ahead only because of the domestic issues coming to the forefront, but rather because McCain seems the more risky choice due to his temperament and daily (sometimes erratic) change in positions, while Obama remains steadfast and calm.
Vice President
The Obama campaign has raised expectations for Palin… not letting the McCain side convince the media that if she doesn’t fall down, she wins. The have consistently shown her as an experienced debater (using Alaska clips, etc.) so that the media … and the public… might start to expect more from her performance.
Media has hyped this debate, predicting larger audience for debate. This is self serving. I don’t think the country (other than out of curiosity) really cares much about Palin anymore.
I predict a smaller audience
To “win”, Biden needs only to “answer the questions”
Which audience counts? People or Press
9-25 – 10-2
On the Debate
Foreign Affairs issues were avoided because of financial events coming to the forefront.
Little focus was put on the question/issue of Obama as Commander in Chief in comparison to McCain.
For what there was, both listed names and places as proof of their understanding of international affairs. Therefore Obama wins for not loosing.
McCain often seemed demeaning to Obama…and angry. Obama always seemed to be in control
The group with whom I watched the debate did not see any of the run-up (we viewed a documentary about the history of debates produced by Jim Trengrove (of the News Hour), and then turned off the television immediately to talk among ourselves.
So we watched the debate absent of any spin (of course through the eyes of a mostly liberal audience however) but their impression too, was that Obama won for not loosing.
When McCain talked about Obama’s reaction to the Russian invasion of Georgia, he attacked him for being too slow to act, his statement was that Obama’s “first reaction was to tell both sides to cease hostilities”. His implication was that Obama was unsure of what to do and not decisive. The audience take on this was that that was the first thing that should be done… and that McCain seemed to think that everything should be answered militarily… even before you know what’s really going on. They thought that this was a dangerous approach.
Audience saw McCain as ‘shooting from the hip’… Obama as more ‘statesman like’
All thought that Obama looked like a President… and (since there wasn’t much talk about military issues) had passed the ‘Commander in Chief’ bar.
On the Financial Crises
McCain acted quickly (and often erratically) in an attempt to take control of the dialogue and the leadership role (have Obama respond to him, instead of vice versa). This of course backfired with his announcement of suspending his campaign and threatening to not participate in the debate.
It was a Presidential ploy… something a President would do in a national emergency. There was only one problem… McCain is NOT president.
Obama waited (he does this all the time) and acted in a slower and more considered manner (consistent with his trying to project the image as a reasoned, statesmanlike leader)
Both are on the wrong side of the public on the rescue plan, but neither wants to take a position in opposition to the other… even though both probably think the plan is bad.
Politically better to both be on the same side (looking at the polls as to who’s on each side in the public, and it’s mixed… potentially negative for both candidates… so they are not going to polarize the voters they need by taking one side or the other). This is all very politically safe… but also cowardly.
It’s also VERY complicated, and due to the way in which it was first presented to the public (by Paulson) not easily explainable.
Obama campaign has taken back the argument (by luck) with the attention shifting to Domestic issues and the Economy.
I do not think however, that Obama is moving ahead only because of the domestic issues coming to the forefront, but rather because McCain seems the more risky choice due to his temperament and daily (sometimes erratic) change in positions, while Obama remains steadfast and calm.
Vice President
The Obama campaign has raised expectations for Palin… not letting the McCain side convince the media that if she doesn’t fall down, she wins. The have consistently shown her as an experienced debater (using Alaska clips, etc.) so that the media … and the public… might start to expect more from her performance.
Media has hyped this debate, predicting larger audience for debate. This is self serving. I don’t think the country (other than out of curiosity) really cares much about Palin anymore.
I predict a smaller audience
To “win”, Biden needs only to “answer the questions”
Which audience counts? People or Press
Political Communication
Journal Entries 9/18 – 9/24
Public is judging candidates more by demeanor, than specific solution to economy problem
One reserved ,considered. One angry, flailing around.
McCain too Hot
Obama, too Cool(?)
Body language: McCain uncomfortable standing. Doesn’t know what to do with his hands. Obama Tall, good posture. Moves fluidly. Exudes confidence and consideration (but little passion)
This week left an impression that McCain is impetuous and acts too quickly. There is no reason to pass a bill that quickly. One week… two weeks… all within reason.
Obama needs to make that point. A considered response… not shoot from the hip and then shoot again.
McCain, in an attempt to distract and change the focus moves to ‘suspend’ the campaign and return to handle crises (a lot of use of the word crises). This is a rose garden approach. As if he were an incumbent president, needing to return.
Unfortunately (for him) he is not president, and the move seems forced and foolish.
Refusing to debate is also a mistake.
Democrats in congress should delay a final agreement until at least Saturday no matter what… forcing McCain to capitulate and go to debate anyway… or appear stubborn and petulant by missing it. Either way Obama wins.
Palin is fading fast. Repeating the same words when she doesn’t have an answer is making her look foolish and unprepared to be president. She should stay on message, but get off script.
Journal Entries 9/18 – 9/24
Public is judging candidates more by demeanor, than specific solution to economy problem
One reserved ,considered. One angry, flailing around.
McCain too Hot
Obama, too Cool(?)
Body language: McCain uncomfortable standing. Doesn’t know what to do with his hands. Obama Tall, good posture. Moves fluidly. Exudes confidence and consideration (but little passion)
This week left an impression that McCain is impetuous and acts too quickly. There is no reason to pass a bill that quickly. One week… two weeks… all within reason.
Obama needs to make that point. A considered response… not shoot from the hip and then shoot again.
McCain, in an attempt to distract and change the focus moves to ‘suspend’ the campaign and return to handle crises (a lot of use of the word crises). This is a rose garden approach. As if he were an incumbent president, needing to return.
Unfortunately (for him) he is not president, and the move seems forced and foolish.
Refusing to debate is also a mistake.
Democrats in congress should delay a final agreement until at least Saturday no matter what… forcing McCain to capitulate and go to debate anyway… or appear stubborn and petulant by missing it. Either way Obama wins.
Palin is fading fast. Repeating the same words when she doesn’t have an answer is making her look foolish and unprepared to be president. She should stay on message, but get off script.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)