Making Ripples: post-corporate adventures in Floyd County Virginia

Why we need to watch tonight's Presidential debate

Those who would lead us out of our current difficulties are not paragons of virtue. They are as flawed as the rest of us, but they have managed to convince many others to support them in their quest for control of the Executive Branch of our government.

Our role in this election is to choose wisely enough so that the next four years will be better for us and our families and our communities than the last four years.

How do we do this when the air is full of accusations and recriminations? Who do we believe when every candidate has failings that will affect the way they think and act?

It is not as hard as it seems. We must listen and observe the candidates as they speak about and to each other. Listening to what O'Reilly or Blitzer or Gibson or Limbaugh say is far less important than doing our own listening and our own research. We can often find transcripts of speeches and unedited videos by using Google or other search engines. We can even find public documents if we are thorough.

The side with the fewest blemishes on their character is probably the sanest, but you will have to make up your own mind as to what you are going to rely on and who you will choose. The important thing is to become informed and to vote as your conscience dictates.

Some of us may find that we are inclined to vote across party lines and choose the individuals at local and national levels who are most aligned with our needs regardless of party affiliation. Others may vote a straight party line. Whatever we do, it is important that we get out and vote and that we support honest elections so that we can live with the final results.

We may not have a perfect system for electing our future leaders, but we do have the responsibility to vote and influence the outcome of this next election.

Listening to the Presidential Debates is a necessary part of being informed. It is not always what people say that reveals their character. The action of speaking under pressure shows a side of the person that is not usually on display. We have another chance to see the candidates in action tonight.

Barack Obama and John McCain will have another chance to show how they handle difficult questions. It should be quite informative. I wonder if there will be any surprises?

If you miss the live broadcast, the transcripts will be available within days. The transcripts are also helpful to confirm if you heard what the candidates actually said.

Two more days to the next Presidential Debate in Nashville

The Commission on Presidential Debates is sponsoring the next debate between Senator McCain and Senator Obama in Nashville, TN. Tom Brokaw is the moderator.

This is your chance to see how the candidates respond to questions in a townhall meeting format. Candidates will be questioned by uncommitted voters identified by the Gallup Organization.

Since both parties have already figured out how to "game" the system, there will be a number of party operatives pretending to be "average uncommitted citizens". As a result, we can expect sophisticated "Gotcha" questions from these "average" citizens.

It will be a good test of candidate toughness under fire and will also be a test of moderator fairness.

Tom Brokaw has come under criticism by Obama supporters because he served as a liaison between NBC and the McCain campaign to diffuse conservative animosity against the network. He also wrote a book with John McCain. We will see if he shows any more favoritism than Ifills did.

Visit the CPD website for full details about the history and format of the debates.

Here is a sample of some important points from the CPD website:

Candidate Negotiation
The debate sponsor and the participants must agree on the details and terms of the debate...

Selection of Questioners
Pick a person/persons who are familiar with the issues and candidates in the election being debated. Journalists are likely to be more experienced and comfortable with handling the technical requirements of a broadcast setting. Above all, choose a moderator or panelists whom you and the debate participants trust to be professional and fair.

If you decide to organize the debate as a town meeting, select an unbiased audience. Consider asking a neutral, independent organization, such as a polling or research group, to identify impartial individuals to serve as members of the audience.

Debate Details:   

General Election Presidential Debate

John McCain (R), United States Senator (AZ) and
Barack Obama (D), United States Senator (IL)

Date:October 7, 2008
Location:Belmont University
City:Nashville, TN
Time:9:00 - 10:30 p.m. Eastern

Sponsor: Commission on Presidential Debates
Moderator: Tom Brokaw, NBC
Topic: All Topics

Format:  90-minute town hall meeting debate. Candidates questioned by uncommitted voters identified by the Gallup Organization. In addition, moderator has discretion to include questions submitted online. Candidates questioned in turn with two-minute responses, followed by one-minute open discussion for each question.

Thanks to  Georgia Reynard of Richmond, VA for the link to CPD.

What were they thinking?

If there was any desire to appear fair and balanced, why would PBS the Commission on Presidential Debates choose Gwen Ifill as the moderator for the Vice Presidential debates when she has a book about Barack Obama coming out soon? Are there no other spokespersons who are not openly aligned with one candidate or another?

One can only imagine if John Corsi, author of the Obama Nation, were proposed as the moderator for the debate. Heads would be exploding at the very thought.

John McCain is more trusting than I am. He said in a recent interview, "I think that Gwen Ifill is a professional and I think that she will do a totally objective job because she is a highly respected professional."

I think that Ifill, with all of the scrutiny she is now under, will do a competent job, but this ridiculous choice is another blemish on the reputation of PBS the CPD. With such a choice of moderator, who is to believe that someone from PBS will not slip the questions to Joe Biden's folks beforehand?.

The original question I posed still applies. Why would PBS anyone make such an inopportune choice?

Mainstream Media is finally becoming sensitive to charges that the media is biased. The recent discussion by MSM talking heads where they discussed that perception on the part of the public shows their complete puzzlement that the public would find their slanted coverage as reflecting bias.

Perhaps like a fish having difficulty comprehending the idea of "being wet", much of the media is so solidly of one political persuasion it is difficult to envision any other way of viewing events.

(Image credit: House of Eratosthenes, Paging Saturday Night Live)

UPDATE: After watching the first hour of the debate, I saw no sign of bias on the part of Gwen Ifill. She seemed to be scrupulosly fair and balanced in her handling of the Vice Presidential candidates. On the other hand, Joe Biden kept flashing her a knowing smile when he wasn't speaking as if to acknowledge that he was on good terms with her.  Sarah was polite, but played to the camera and the audience and answered only those parts of the questions she wanted to answer. Both candidates were persuasive speakers.

Why a debate is different than a campaign stop

The presidential debate showed a different side of both Barack Obama and John McCain than I had ever seen before. This is probably because the debate environment is closer to what an executive experiences on the job has to deal with as opposed to campaigning and interviews which are more like sales situations.

Barack Obama is a gifted speaker and has the ability to arouse an audience and to get others to follow his dreams. He is an incredibly persuasive orator and his rapid rise to political prominence reflects that ability.

John McCain is no salesman and on the campaign trail his speeches have not seemed inspiring, only reassuring us that he means well. Until Sarah Palin joined his campaign, there was no sizzle. A sales campaign without sizzle is a non-event.

A live, in-person debate is much more like the kind of challenge executives face every day in the business world and in the political world. Courage and the confidence that comes from actual experience are essential for handling pressure and making decisions when there is a lot at stake.

There are no retakes or Photoshopping in real life situations. In a presidential debate, as in real life, your opposition can see you sweat and every tremor and bit of nervousness is there for all to see. There is no provision for a "Do Over" call. What goes down in a crunch situation is there for all to see.

In last night's debate John McCain's experience served him well. Barack Obama's obvious brilliance and oratorical ability were on display and were tested to the fullest. Only the voters can decide which man is the better choice to be President of the United States for the next four years.

Orchestrated "grassroots" smear campaigns are business, not personal

If you ever wondered how some of these stories about candidates seem to spread "spontaneously", this detailed analysis on the Jawa Report will give you more information than you ever imagined.

The basic formula is that a professional PR firm plants imaginatively creative and false videos on YouTube and gets a cadre of sockpuppets to spread the word.

Once the smear is exposed, the original videos are taken down from YouTube and all traces of upload are removed. This leaves copies of the video circulating as a "Grassroots Phenomenon". This is Astroturfing at its finest.

The Jawa Report story points out that the voiceover on one particular "grassroots" attack video is performed by the same person who does the voiceovers for one of the candidates. The PR firm behind the grassroots campaign is tightly connected to the same candidate and the uploads and sockpuppet comments were done during normal working hours. This would strongly indicate that this smear campaign was business, not personal.

Actions such as this will lead back to the candidate involved and will generate extreme negative publicity.

Neither party should allow this to happen on their behalf as it will rebound on them.

UPDATE: Within hours of the posting of the Jawa Report, all of the videos were removed from YouTube and the accounts of those who had uploaded the videos had been closed. Exposure was all it took to make this orchestrated "grassroots" smear campaign vanish. If it had been an actual campaign by real people, they would have been basking in the attention and the heavy traffic they had generated.

Obama and Palin spoke to large crowds Sunday

Barack Obama spoke to 20,000 supporters in Charlotte, NC on Sunday 9/21/08. Campaign staff estimated that there were another 10,000 people outside.

The WRAL video was the only one I could find and the talking heads kept interjecting comments when they should have just covered Obama's speech. This video does provide some close-up views of Barack that give more insight to his character.

If you can find a better video, let me know and I will add a link to it. The important thing for me is hearing what the candidate says and how he or she says it. Critiques by talking heads add little value. In fact, WRAL showed their bias against Obama in the same way that CNN, NBC, etc show their bias against McCain and Palin.  A pox on all their houses. If this continues, TV news may follow the newspaper industry into the dumpster.

Sarah Palin was also on the campaign trail on Sunday. She spoke to 60,000 people in The Villages, a senior community in Florida where people waited in line for hours to hear her.

She was accompanied by her husband Todd and her children. She had great rapport with the audience and it was a delight to hear her speak.

Watch the video. Her message about small businesses and energy independence resonated with her audience.

More about her speech at Gateway Pundit.

Astroturfing

Astroturfing is the dishonest technique of inserting carefully prepared political messages into public forums where the writers claim to be  "real citizens" who are "independent".

This technique tries to create a "grassroots" phenomenon -- but it's artificial and inorganic. Hence, "Astroturf." It is also a technique that is likely to backfire with independent voters who are increasingly Internet savvy.

Astroturfing is played with both volunteer and paid help and seems to be increasing as we get closer to Election Day. This is not confined to Campaign HQ for either party because there are independent regional efforts by Democratic and Republican partisans alike.

The two common versions go like this:

I have voted Republican (Democratic) for the past two elections, but the smears spread by John McCain (Barack Obama) and his minions have convinced me to switch parties at last and vote for the man who will lead America out of the mess it is in.
Signed, Rita from Ohio.

A more sophisticated version goes like this:

Democratic version:
1. Claim to be conservative or Christian,
2. say some weakly charitable things about McCain and/or Palin to "prove" you're not a partisan,
3. But we had no idea McCain was so craven and ridiculous. Sara Palin is no more qualified and tested than Julia Roberts.

Republican version:
1. Claim to have been a long term Democrat
2. Say how much hope was generated by Obama's nomination
3. Express grave concern about Obama's donations from Fannie Mae, close ties to William Ayers, etc. and say will be voting McCain/Palin now

The giveaway in most cases is that the same wording appears in comment after comment on many different forums and the attacks are wildly partisan and not completely truthful or accurate. Their hope is that by repeating the big lie often enough it will convince voters that it is true.

What these people of both parties do not seem to know is that once a falsehood has been exposed, all credibility is lost. Continuing to spread a discredited story of how bad someone is only causes revulsion and rejection on the part of the public that votes.

Attack ads are a losing campaign strategy

Irresponsible and untrue ads can snatch defeat from victory in the current Presidential race. Right now, I think that either side could lose the election by continuing attack ads. The more either side attacks, the more the public will tune them out.

In a recent Fox News interview, Karl Rove had some words of wisdom for both McCain and Obama. He is quoted as saying candidates John McCain and Barack Obama have gone too far in their attacks on each other. It is well worth reading.

Rove spoke on Fox News Sunday, but I cannot find the entire video yet, only snippets taken out of context  to prove particular points. It seems some people have selective hearing because some media outlets are trumpeting triumphantly "Rove says McCain has gone too far". (His statements put both parties on notice.) 

Taking words out of context to support an argument is similarly self-destructive, because we can all look up the original transcripts and that destroys any credibility for that source of information.

If supporters claim that something isn't fair, or the opposition is hiding something really awful, the public sees these acts as the actions of a victim and rarely elect victims.

Watch the polls change back and forth as the tide of attack ads continues.

Megham McCain is blogging

If you ever wanted a vantage point from which to view a candidate from the inside of the campaign, you may enjoy Meghan McCain's blog. Be sure to check out the Video as well as the Photo sections.

There are images you will see nowhere else. I got a completely different view of John McCain and his family from this blog. Meghan does the writing and the video presentations. Photos are taken by Heather Brand and videos are shot by Shannon Bee.

She has a children's book out now and is doing book signings. The title is "My Dad John McCain."

Visit McCainBlogette.com. Go Meghan!

Tired of Slime? Try Factcheck.org for instant relief.

In the pre-Internet world, sliming a political opponent was fairly easy to do. You would get some well-known media figure to trumpet his or her "discoveries" about the opposing candidate and you would time it so there was no time for anyone to respond with the whole story.

Most of the media figureheads on the Left and the Right  still are working on that assumption, even after Rathergate.

Unfortunately for them, bloggers can locate the original transcripts on the "Intertubes" and publish corrections to false stories and misleading headlines within hours of the original slime. They also use factcheck.org to get the entire story and so can you.

Result? Extreme loss of credibility by the misleading media figure and a boost for the target of the slime.

A political campaign is a high level marketing activity and obeys the same fundamental rules of communication. If a group maligns a political opponent or even spends a lot of time discussing a political opponent, that group is spending their precious donated money advertising the opponent.

When a false statement is made, it can be easily detected through use of the Internet and the originator of the falsehood is tagged as an "unreliable source" meaning untrustworthy. Increasing the volume of the lies told is no use. It only makes those who are uncommitted more wary of your candidate.

Listen to the candidates yourself and understand what they are saying. If you listen to news, try to understand that 85% of all media figures vote for one political party. That is not wrong at all, but you should be aware that 85% is a long way from being fair and balanced.

As Election Day nears, there will be more pressure on all sides to support the "party" candidates. and the truth will get bent more and more. As a citizen, you will be better off finding out for yourself what the candidates have done and said.

If you find that you are enraged by what some candidate is supposedly going to do to the Constitution, the American Way, women's rights, your taxes, read factcheck.org first before sending emails to everyone you know. Chances are that the candidate never said or did what was claimed by opponents.

Factcheck.org is great for clearing slime from your life. Be sure and listen to "It's a Mess Out There."