Fily Bâ Camara
ENG 111
Prof. Kari
7 November 2008
The Tone of the 2008 Presidential Campaign as a Reflection of a Disturbing New Ideology
Since early 2007, the United States has been captivated by a once every four year phenomenon in which the worldwide beacon of democracy, goes through a process to select its next head executive. Added to the usual drama that accompanies this occasion is the fact this election, primaries included, has involved a slew of candidates who would have been or will be the first of their kind to represent the United States as president. The Democratic Primary for the first time ever, had two front-runners who were a woman, Hilary Clinton, and a man with a white mother and black father from Kenya, named Barack H. Obama. By the end of this intensively contested primary, Barack Obama came out to be the victor, and in the general election of the coming months faced John McCain who questionably selected another woman, Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska. When it became evident that the final matchup would be between Senators Obama and his running mate Joe Biden, and on the other side, Senator McCain and Governor Palin, many could already see that one side had much of the momentum following the unpopular Bush years, and carrying a message of hope and change. The question then remained, how could the two opposing sides combat each other, particularly when one had a visibly larger and more enthusiastic following. Thus, the decision was at some point made to attack each other, particularly on the side of McCain-Palin, who laced their remarks with inferences questioning things about Sen. Obama ranging from his patriotism, to his ability to be trusted, in a manner that was reflective of the shift in ideology that occurred in the years since the beginning of the new millennium.
After the horrors of September 11, 2001, the United States, collectively, took precautions to prevent against such an attack in the future. It was the Bush Administrations policy to combat “terrorism” with combat abroad and increased scrutiny domestically. Unfortunately, with these measures and others like them, many citizens are wrongfully profiled and categorized due to their ethnicities, faiths, or affiliations. It would seem at times that many had forgotten the diverse history of the country they claim to love and protect. At some point, it became unfavorable at all to question the establishment. The nation that is touted for its value on freedom and expression had resorted the incessant questioning of patriotism and loyalty as exhibited in the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections where the wearing of a flag pin took importance, as an issue, over health care reform or U.S. involvement in conflict over seas.
Many will argue that times have simply changed since 9/11 of 2001, and the United States cannot afford the loose attitude that lead to the attacks in the first place. It is with this notion, fostered by the Bush administration, that Senator McCain’s presidential campaign leads a truly desperate attack on Obama, not necessarily calling him out on issues of allegiance directly, but fostering the sentiment and then doing nothing to quell the outcries later on. This is perhaps just a part of the campaign season and it is in fact, a tactic also employed by the Obama campaign, though not as much as an attack on McCain’s patriotism because it is widely thought to be “unquestionable”. For much of the year leading up to the election, the strategy of Obama’s opponents was to counter his strongest attributes with ridicule and downplay. This is a strategy that was employed with much success by Karl Rove and the Bush-Cheney campaign against John Kerry, where they turned his intellectualism, international affiliations and Vietnam War service into liabilities. For Obama, this would the fact the he is well liked and greeted with large crowds wherever he goes must turn into a fault of his, along with his eloquent speaking, and diverse background. Little was done to attack his actual positions on issues until later on, when he was made out to be a socialist. With regards to patriotism and allegiance to the United States, the opposition often accused Sen. Obama and the other Democrats of seeking “surrender” in Iraq and not wanting the United States to “win”, two terms that are completely inapplicable to conflict at all. It was later an issue that Sen. Obama had some obscure relations to former domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, a charge that had a larger connotation.
The most disturbing trend that one may detect amongst all of these specific instances is one of racism and prejudice. Barack Obama, was born Barack Hussein Obama, and is the son of a black man from Kenya, and a white woman from Kansas. His name is reflective of the Muslim faith and particularly his middle name is shared by many in the Middle Eastern region of the World and those who simply practice the faith. Out of this relation, came the accusation that the Senator from Illinois is in fact a Muslim himself, when he is in reality a Christian, a fact that was defended even by Senator John McCain whom Obama was running against. With regards to more conventional, American, Black/White racism, many undertones are detectable in statements in which voices talk down on Obama as whites had often done in the segregated south. Perhaps, in what conveys what can only be described as a general level of ignorance and prejudice is not the accusation of Obama’s Islamic faith, but rather that is an issue at all. To these accusations the question should be asked, “So what if he were?” Colin Powell in making his endorsement of Obama said it best.
Perhaps what makes Obama so vulnerable to these attacks is the fact he is the first of his kind to be in this position. His father was Islamic and from Kenya, so naturally he is considered, to this day, a Muslim, he is black, so he feared by the more ignorant whites. Obama’s obscure relations to people like Bill Ayers, a domestic terrorist and the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, provided fuel to the machine that sought to dismantle Obama’s character and play to the fears of a people victimized by years of an administration that relied on those fears and often stirred them. With the final results of the election quite clear, it with hope that the people of United States can move forward and continue to perfect the nation they claim such allegiance to.
http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/rove-previews-strategies-against-clinton-obama-2008-01-16.html
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Friday, November 7, 2008
Fily Bâ Camara
ENG 111
Prof. Kari
7 November 2008
The Tone of the 2008 Presidential Campaign as a Reflection of a Disturbing New Ideology
Since early 2007, the United States has been captivated by a once every four year phenomenon in which the worldwide beacon of democracy, goes through a process to select its next head executive. Added to the usual drama that accompanies this occasion is the fact this election, primaries included, has involved a slew of candidates who would have been or will be the first of their kind to represent the United States as president. The Democratic Primary for the first time ever, had two front-runners who were a woman, Hilary Clinton, and a man with a white mother and black father from Kenya, named Barack H. Obama. By the end of this intensively contested primary, Barack Obama came out to be the victor, and in the general election of the coming months faced John McCain who questionably selected another woman, Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska. When it became evident that the final matchup would be between Senators Obama and Biden, and on the other side, Senator McCain and Governor Palin, many could already see that one side had much of the momentum following the unpopular Bush years, and carrying a message of hope and change. The question then remained, how could the two opposing sides combat each other, particularly when one had a visibly larger and more enthusiastic following. Thus, the decision was at some point made to attack each other, particularly on the side of McCain-Palin, who laced their remarks with inferences questioning things about Obama ranging from his patriotism, to his ability to be trusted, in a manner that was reflective of the shift in ideology that occurred in the years since the beginning of the new millennium.
After the horrors of September 11, 2001, the United States, collectively, took precautions to prevent against such an attack in the future. It was the Bush Administrations policy to combat “terrorism” with combat abroad and increased scrutiny domestically. Unfortunately, with these measures and others like them, many citizens are wrongfully profiled and categorized due to their ethnicities, faiths, or affiliations. At some point, it became unfavorable at all to question the establishment. The nation that is touted for its value on freedom and expression had resorted the incessant questioning of patriotism and loyalty as exhibited in the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections where the wearing of a flag pin took importance, as an issue, over health care reform or U.S. involvement in conflict over seas.
Many will argue that times have simply changed since 9/11 of 2001, and the United States cannot afford the loose attitude that lead to the attacks in the first place. It is with this notion, fostered by the Bush administration, that the campaign of John McCain lead a truly desperate attack on Obama, not necessarily calling him out on issues of allegiance directly, but fostering the sentiment and then doing nothing to quell the outcries later on. This is perhaps just a part of the campaign season and it is in fact, a tactic also employed by the Obama campaign, though not as much as an attack on McCain’s patriotism because it is widely thought to be “unquestionable”.
Perhaps what makes Obama so vulnerable to these attacks is the fact he is the first of his kind to be in this position. His father was Islamic and from Kenya, so naturally he is considered, to this day, a Muslim, he is black, so he feared by the more ignorant whites. Obama’s obscure relations to people like Bill Ayers, a domestic terrorist and the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, provided fuel to the machine that sought to dismantle Obama’s character and play to the fears of a people victimized by years of an administration that relied on those fears and often stirred.
ENG 111
Prof. Kari
7 November 2008
The Tone of the 2008 Presidential Campaign as a Reflection of a Disturbing New Ideology
Since early 2007, the United States has been captivated by a once every four year phenomenon in which the worldwide beacon of democracy, goes through a process to select its next head executive. Added to the usual drama that accompanies this occasion is the fact this election, primaries included, has involved a slew of candidates who would have been or will be the first of their kind to represent the United States as president. The Democratic Primary for the first time ever, had two front-runners who were a woman, Hilary Clinton, and a man with a white mother and black father from Kenya, named Barack H. Obama. By the end of this intensively contested primary, Barack Obama came out to be the victor, and in the general election of the coming months faced John McCain who questionably selected another woman, Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska. When it became evident that the final matchup would be between Senators Obama and Biden, and on the other side, Senator McCain and Governor Palin, many could already see that one side had much of the momentum following the unpopular Bush years, and carrying a message of hope and change. The question then remained, how could the two opposing sides combat each other, particularly when one had a visibly larger and more enthusiastic following. Thus, the decision was at some point made to attack each other, particularly on the side of McCain-Palin, who laced their remarks with inferences questioning things about Obama ranging from his patriotism, to his ability to be trusted, in a manner that was reflective of the shift in ideology that occurred in the years since the beginning of the new millennium.
After the horrors of September 11, 2001, the United States, collectively, took precautions to prevent against such an attack in the future. It was the Bush Administrations policy to combat “terrorism” with combat abroad and increased scrutiny domestically. Unfortunately, with these measures and others like them, many citizens are wrongfully profiled and categorized due to their ethnicities, faiths, or affiliations. At some point, it became unfavorable at all to question the establishment. The nation that is touted for its value on freedom and expression had resorted the incessant questioning of patriotism and loyalty as exhibited in the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections where the wearing of a flag pin took importance, as an issue, over health care reform or U.S. involvement in conflict over seas.
Many will argue that times have simply changed since 9/11 of 2001, and the United States cannot afford the loose attitude that lead to the attacks in the first place. It is with this notion, fostered by the Bush administration, that the campaign of John McCain lead a truly desperate attack on Obama, not necessarily calling him out on issues of allegiance directly, but fostering the sentiment and then doing nothing to quell the outcries later on. This is perhaps just a part of the campaign season and it is in fact, a tactic also employed by the Obama campaign, though not as much as an attack on McCain’s patriotism because it is widely thought to be “unquestionable”.
Perhaps what makes Obama so vulnerable to these attacks is the fact he is the first of his kind to be in this position. His father was Islamic and from Kenya, so naturally he is considered, to this day, a Muslim, he is black, so he feared by the more ignorant whites. Obama’s obscure relations to people like Bill Ayers, a domestic terrorist and the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, provided fuel to the machine that sought to dismantle Obama’s character and play to the fears of a people victimized by years of an administration that relied on those fears and often stirred.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
On the Issues
Abortion:
McCain- pro-life (1)
Obama- pro choice (2)
Budget/Economy:
McCain- lower trade barriers and certain tax breaks (1)
Obama- tax cuts for families and small businesses, fight for fair trade (2)
Civil Rights:
McCain- Provisions to ensure workplace equality (3)
Obama- Combat discrimination, strengthen law enforcement, expand hate crime statutes
Defense:
McCain- Strengthen the Military and build up/increase spending
Obama- modernization of the military restoration of Nat'l guard, further cooperation with allies.
Education:
McCain- giving parents the choice to leave "failing" schools-- vouchers
Obama- reformation of No child left behind, focus on early childhood education, make college affordable
Energy:
McCain- focus on drilling to decrease foreign dependency
Obama- offshore drilling and tapping natural gas reserves while focusing on renewable energy.
Environment:
McCain- attacking climate change with measures beneficial to the economy
Obama- dealing with climate change with a promotion of a green way of life.
Gay Marriage:
McCain- No
Obama- No
Health Care:
McCain- increased privatization relying on the market to make costs affordable. More consumer choice.
Obama- Health care made affordable through lower copay, and mandate for children.
Homeland Security:
McCain- fight abroad to protect the homeland
Obama- Defeat of Terrorism, prevention of loose nuclear components, strengthening of biosecurity
Immigration:
McCain- Secure Borders, immigration with national security in mind.
Obama- secure Borders, reformation of the system, intent to bring people out of the shadows
Social Security:
Obama- Protect SS, while strengthening medicare, and providing cheaper drugs
Taxes:
McCain- cut taxes at all costs
Obama- tax cuts for those making under $250,000, an increase for those over...
War:
McCain- Continue war on Terror, stay in Iraq until "victory"
Obama- phased withdrawal from Iraq with focus on Afghanistan
Welfare:
Obama- work-pay, job growth.
Barack Obama and Joe Biden: The Change We Need. 2008. Barack Obama. 2.Nov.08
JohnMcCain.com.2008.McCain-Palin2008.2.Nov.2008
The analysis of the situation provided by the piece is somewhat misguided. It is the belief of the author that the questions posed by Barbara West are exemplary of those that should be, but are not being asked by much of the media. However, the truth is that while Obama does get some favorable attention by the mainstream media, this is in the face of the multiple things the media allows John McCain and Sara Palin do get away with. The questions posed by West were not in depth or challenging but rather already refuted statements that were only designed to maintain the focus of the people on some obscure, ungrounded, and often irrelevant charges while taking their focus off of the issues that truly matter. Such is the last strategy of the McCain Campaign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
