Hello GoodPeople,
I can't wait for tonight's debate....I don't think there was ever a doubt that it WOULD take place. I honestly don't know what Senator McCain was thinking...but I believe he's hurt himself by "suspending" the his campaign. (His vice-presidential pick is slowly unraveling...but we'll save commentary on her for a later post.)
Before we see these two men engage in contest tonight....let's view an international (European) perspective on the candidacy of Senator Barack Obama.
I see this international perspective as important because FOREIGN POLICY, thanks to George Bush and a band of greedy Republican power-players, have caused serious damage to U.S. moral authority in the world. America NEEDS a leader whom the world can respect, and see has vastly different from the disrepectful "bully" approach that we have illustrated for eight years. It's time to wake up "red" America...COWBOY DIPLOMACY IS OVER. You got rich...quit complaining..
The following clip is a good example of WHY we should continue with this debate...note that Barack Obama is focused on COMMUNICATING to the American people. He seems to be focused on providing the American people with a clear choice on presidential policy differences...
I'll have more commentary after the debate...
Friday, September 26, 2008
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Semiotic Battles!
Now that BOTH parties are rallying around the theme of CHANGE, I've often wondered how McCain is going to effectively battle Obama AFTER appropriating a message that Obama has been preaching for a year and a half. Talk about imitation being the highest form of flattery....
As a communications professor, who is in the middle of teaching a course on the fundamentals of mass media, I'll inject a bit of "academic objectivity" here. Robert Greenwald (and BravenView films) have constructed a collage of media clips in the video production above. In doing so, they have SELECTIVELY chosen particular clips and organized them in a manner which reinforces a particular position. Let's see how the producers at Fox News "play the game." Watch below:
Is one symbolic argument more logically sound than the other? Is the content of one production more relevant than the other? What are your feelings? Please comment.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
O' Say Can WHO See?
Let's begin with the topic of CHANGE.
I noticed a phenomenon during the early portions of the Democratic primary. A young man by the name of Barack Obama introduced himself as an agent of CHANGE. He kept this topic as a recurring thesis in his stump speeches; and he also placed the word on his campaign placards. This one word became the goal, motto, direction, and purpose that he ran on. THEN Hillary Clinton adopted CHANGE and put a "little twist" on it by coupling it with experience. (Which, by the way, begin to signal the disorganization of her campaign.) Then you begin to hear more and more of the Democratic candidates squabble about who could be best to bring about CHANGE. Now, I see the Republicans are doing the SAME THING. Which baffles me, because, once they begin talking about CHANGE, they come close to admitting that what they have done for eight years is so messed up that it needs to be CHANGED. In short, I think it's very important to note that CHANGE has become so attractive that everyone has decided to adopt it. Why?...because this is what the American people have said they want: CHANGE. ...and Barack Obama, in his judgement and experience, knew it from the beginning.
Small note on Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery:
Over the course of the last two days, several Republican speakers mentioned that THEIR party (the Republican Party) ended slavery. This mention, just like their appropriation of CHANGE, is pure pandering. Let me explain something to the voters of America. The constituents of the Republican party that ended slavery are the same demographic of people who constitute the contemporary Democratic party. The "political ancestors" of the people we saw in the ExCel center over the last couple days belonged to the "Dixiecrats," "Yellow Dog" democrats...the members of the Solid South...those who wanted slavery...fought Reconstruction...and I don't think is much of a leap, supported the terrorists activity of the Ku Klux Klan upon other (black) Americans. With FDRoosevelt's Public Works Programs enacted, the demographics of the two major parties started to shift (1933-1945). Which is why a lot of Blacks, some other ethnic groups, and liberals belong to the Democratic party and fiscal and social conservatives are now Republicans. So, for those that didn't know this bit of U.S. History, now you do...don't be fooled by the petty pander. THEIR party was the party of Herbert Hoover...but they didn't mention that last night. Remember the "Hoover Pockets" of the Great Depression? I think it would be a wonderful American fashion statement to bring back now..."Bush pockets."
The Dissenters in the audience:
Not even the chants of "USA" could drown out the dissenters against the War last night. By the way, one dissenter wore a shirt that read VETERANS AGAINST THE WAR. This, I understand, as quite a "trump card." ...and I forget the number right now, but Obama has GROSSLY out-raised McCain among troops in Iraq. So, as much as the RNC attempted to "decorate" war and military service through their video productions, let us not forget, THIS IS AN UNPOPULAR WAR. And the issue of the "surge" is so laughable to me, I won't discuss it. Okay, one sentence (question) on the surge: Are you seriously going to use a "surge" (that's a couple months old) to speak about a 5-6 year poorly managed war?
I think it's important to note that DNC didn't have any vocal dissenters. And was the case, despite the fact that they didn't come off as intimdating, sarcastic, or condescening. And by my count, the Republicans had FOUR vocal dissenters last night...and ONE the night before.
McCain's speech:
"We're all Americans....and that's an association that means more to me, than any other." And the audience roars?!?!! How do you clap so enthusiastically as a result of this "cooperative rhetoric" when you've been so enthusiastic about the "divisive rhetoric" (Palin, Romney, Giuliani)?
There were parts of the speech where McCain was laying blame on his party...but he kinda muddled that...then he said BOTH parties messed things up....but, WE lost their trust. It was so muddled, I don't even know how to talk about. But, I will say, as a "scrutinizer of men," I believe John McCain is a decent guy. I like him better than a lot other people he's surrounding by. ...and I believe there were parts of his speech that were muddled because he has to pander to different elements within his party...and he's trying his best to do that...and "stick to his guns." Yet, in still, I applaud him for seeming courageous enough to tackle the task. In short, I saw this as him attempting to honorable...but he's surrounded by a den of wolves! Tough task.
I noticed a phenomenon during the early portions of the Democratic primary. A young man by the name of Barack Obama introduced himself as an agent of CHANGE. He kept this topic as a recurring thesis in his stump speeches; and he also placed the word on his campaign placards. This one word became the goal, motto, direction, and purpose that he ran on. THEN Hillary Clinton adopted CHANGE and put a "little twist" on it by coupling it with experience. (Which, by the way, begin to signal the disorganization of her campaign.) Then you begin to hear more and more of the Democratic candidates squabble about who could be best to bring about CHANGE. Now, I see the Republicans are doing the SAME THING. Which baffles me, because, once they begin talking about CHANGE, they come close to admitting that what they have done for eight years is so messed up that it needs to be CHANGED. In short, I think it's very important to note that CHANGE has become so attractive that everyone has decided to adopt it. Why?...because this is what the American people have said they want: CHANGE. ...and Barack Obama, in his judgement and experience, knew it from the beginning.
Small note on Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery:
Over the course of the last two days, several Republican speakers mentioned that THEIR party (the Republican Party) ended slavery. This mention, just like their appropriation of CHANGE, is pure pandering. Let me explain something to the voters of America. The constituents of the Republican party that ended slavery are the same demographic of people who constitute the contemporary Democratic party. The "political ancestors" of the people we saw in the ExCel center over the last couple days belonged to the "Dixiecrats," "Yellow Dog" democrats...the members of the Solid South...those who wanted slavery...fought Reconstruction...and I don't think is much of a leap, supported the terrorists activity of the Ku Klux Klan upon other (black) Americans. With FDRoosevelt's Public Works Programs enacted, the demographics of the two major parties started to shift (1933-1945). Which is why a lot of Blacks, some other ethnic groups, and liberals belong to the Democratic party and fiscal and social conservatives are now Republicans. So, for those that didn't know this bit of U.S. History, now you do...don't be fooled by the petty pander. THEIR party was the party of Herbert Hoover...but they didn't mention that last night. Remember the "Hoover Pockets" of the Great Depression? I think it would be a wonderful American fashion statement to bring back now..."Bush pockets."
The Dissenters in the audience:
Not even the chants of "USA" could drown out the dissenters against the War last night. By the way, one dissenter wore a shirt that read VETERANS AGAINST THE WAR. This, I understand, as quite a "trump card." ...and I forget the number right now, but Obama has GROSSLY out-raised McCain among troops in Iraq. So, as much as the RNC attempted to "decorate" war and military service through their video productions, let us not forget, THIS IS AN UNPOPULAR WAR. And the issue of the "surge" is so laughable to me, I won't discuss it. Okay, one sentence (question) on the surge: Are you seriously going to use a "surge" (that's a couple months old) to speak about a 5-6 year poorly managed war?
I think it's important to note that DNC didn't have any vocal dissenters. And was the case, despite the fact that they didn't come off as intimdating, sarcastic, or condescening. And by my count, the Republicans had FOUR vocal dissenters last night...and ONE the night before.
McCain's speech:
"We're all Americans....and that's an association that means more to me, than any other." And the audience roars?!?!! How do you clap so enthusiastically as a result of this "cooperative rhetoric" when you've been so enthusiastic about the "divisive rhetoric" (Palin, Romney, Giuliani)?
There were parts of the speech where McCain was laying blame on his party...but he kinda muddled that...then he said BOTH parties messed things up....but, WE lost their trust. It was so muddled, I don't even know how to talk about. But, I will say, as a "scrutinizer of men," I believe John McCain is a decent guy. I like him better than a lot other people he's surrounding by. ...and I believe there were parts of his speech that were muddled because he has to pander to different elements within his party...and he's trying his best to do that...and "stick to his guns." Yet, in still, I applaud him for seeming courageous enough to tackle the task. In short, I saw this as him attempting to honorable...but he's surrounded by a den of wolves! Tough task.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Obama Speaks Well, But.....
Hello America,
This is The GoodDoctor reporting once....and I have shifted my attention that of the Republicans this week. As we know, their convention got off to a slow start due to Hurricane Gustav. (It seems that God answered their prayers to rain out Obama's speech one week too late.) But, now it seems they are "ready to go on the attack!"
...and what's the favorite attack line this political season? Barack Obama speaks well...but it takes more than speech to be a president. Now, this particular attack irked me when Clinton used it in the primary, and I am still somewhat puzzled by it. What else to politicians do during campaigns besides speak? Everyone who is vying for the White House is speaking. And if we are honest, American history shows that most of their words are LIES anyway. It seems to me that because Bararck Obama speaks better than his adversaries, that now speaking (rhetoric) has now become some sort of malformation. SPEAKING IS WHAT IS REQUIRED AT THIS STAGE OF THE GAME. ...and by the way, Obama's rhetoric seems to be borrowed by several Republican speakers. I've just listened to Romney and Huckabee talk about CHANGE in their speeches at the RNC.
All the speakers tonight (9/3/08) mentioned Democrats wanted to raise OUR taxes. Okay, the Democrats are running on taxing corporations that have not shared wealth, and lowering taxing on the middle-class. So, is the middle-class THE AMERICAN PEOPLE or the the corporations? Listening to the Republicans...and considering their POLICIES you would have to assume that CORPORATIONS ARE AMERICA.
Now, to Rudy Giuliani...he was utterly DISRESPECTFUL. His sarcasm intolerable. If anything was made present tonight, it was that the Democratic ticket has A LOT MORE CLASS. He laughed...he snickered...he poked fun at Obama's role as a community organizer. Rudy, honestly, YOUR PRESIDENT has driven middle-America into the shape that it is in now! Who can be more incompetent than GEORGE BUSH? One point out of many mis-leading points.... "We're the party that ended slavery." Rudy, the constiuents of your contemporary Republican party were in the Democratic party during the Republican initiatives. They were called "Yellow Dog Democrats" of the Solid South. Rudy, you should know this history. So, I'm assuming you're being "slick."
My opinion of Sarah Palin is now that she is ready for the taking. It's time to take out the "guns" because she's a "Hockey Mom," and by her own words, their "pitbulls with lipstick." Alaska gets more federal assistance than any other state in the nation. So, Alaska is a WELFARE state. I wonder why Mississippi, Maryland, Georgia, Alabama, or the Carolinas don't get that much Federal assistance? Something worth thinking about.
I would also say that the Democrats should put their gloves on...because it is going to take a fight to beat these Republicans. When did CHANGE become the goal that the parties share? Obama has been talking about CHANGE from the beginning. Did you all consult with him on sharing this task, Sarah?
As I assumed, it's going to be a VERY INTERESTING political season. Bring it On.
This is The GoodDoctor reporting once....and I have shifted my attention that of the Republicans this week. As we know, their convention got off to a slow start due to Hurricane Gustav. (It seems that God answered their prayers to rain out Obama's speech one week too late.) But, now it seems they are "ready to go on the attack!"
...and what's the favorite attack line this political season? Barack Obama speaks well...but it takes more than speech to be a president. Now, this particular attack irked me when Clinton used it in the primary, and I am still somewhat puzzled by it. What else to politicians do during campaigns besides speak? Everyone who is vying for the White House is speaking. And if we are honest, American history shows that most of their words are LIES anyway. It seems to me that because Bararck Obama speaks better than his adversaries, that now speaking (rhetoric) has now become some sort of malformation. SPEAKING IS WHAT IS REQUIRED AT THIS STAGE OF THE GAME. ...and by the way, Obama's rhetoric seems to be borrowed by several Republican speakers. I've just listened to Romney and Huckabee talk about CHANGE in their speeches at the RNC.
All the speakers tonight (9/3/08) mentioned Democrats wanted to raise OUR taxes. Okay, the Democrats are running on taxing corporations that have not shared wealth, and lowering taxing on the middle-class. So, is the middle-class THE AMERICAN PEOPLE or the the corporations? Listening to the Republicans...and considering their POLICIES you would have to assume that CORPORATIONS ARE AMERICA.
Now, to Rudy Giuliani...he was utterly DISRESPECTFUL. His sarcasm intolerable. If anything was made present tonight, it was that the Democratic ticket has A LOT MORE CLASS. He laughed...he snickered...he poked fun at Obama's role as a community organizer. Rudy, honestly, YOUR PRESIDENT has driven middle-America into the shape that it is in now! Who can be more incompetent than GEORGE BUSH? One point out of many mis-leading points.... "We're the party that ended slavery." Rudy, the constiuents of your contemporary Republican party were in the Democratic party during the Republican initiatives. They were called "Yellow Dog Democrats" of the Solid South. Rudy, you should know this history. So, I'm assuming you're being "slick."
My opinion of Sarah Palin is now that she is ready for the taking. It's time to take out the "guns" because she's a "Hockey Mom," and by her own words, their "pitbulls with lipstick." Alaska gets more federal assistance than any other state in the nation. So, Alaska is a WELFARE state. I wonder why Mississippi, Maryland, Georgia, Alabama, or the Carolinas don't get that much Federal assistance? Something worth thinking about.
I would also say that the Democrats should put their gloves on...because it is going to take a fight to beat these Republicans. When did CHANGE become the goal that the parties share? Obama has been talking about CHANGE from the beginning. Did you all consult with him on sharing this task, Sarah?
As I assumed, it's going to be a VERY INTERESTING political season. Bring it On.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)