Monday, October 20, 2008
And they say McCain's methods are bad...
Now more than ever McCain has been highly criticized for his method of getting voters to support him: negative attack ads, associating Obama with Ayers, and allowing pundits to slander Obama's race and religious preferences. But why are they criticized? Well, they are offensive to most, conveyed only partially truthfully, but most importantly, they stray from the key political issues. Now I don't condone McCain's tactics, but I think people too easily accept some of Obama's more suspicious campaign methods, while fuming at McCain. Obama has been using/abusing his celebrity-like popularity to his advantage. For example, I was talking to my boyfriend who told me at his college, Obama campaign officials had set up a booth offering free shirts in exchange for participation in an Obama march. Now is bribing college students a good way to get their vote? Absolutely, hordes of people flocked to get a shirt. But again, it ignores the substance of what this election should be about, the issues. So as much as we would all like to believe Obama doesn't use any questionable methods to gain support, at times he can campaign just as dirty as McCain.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I don't agree, Kristen - Obama's tactics aren't dirty or questionable, they're grassroots organizing techniques! What he's doing is gathering support, making sure people know what he's doing and who is! Giving away t-shirts for participation in a march? Sure! Gets the youth interested in his name, makes sure people see his support. And I don't think he's ignoring the issues at all, either. Are you sure there wasn't any speech at the end of the march, or any pamphlets or flyers with talking points on them? There's no way that Obama's grassroots techniques can be compared to McCain's negativity - they're just not on the same level. McCain is fighting dirty because he's desperate, and is slipping in the polls; Obama is merely keeping people interested, making sure they pay attention to him.
I'm inclined to agree with Sam. I don't think giving away shirts is at all comparable with the misleading statements, smears, and (at times) outright lies put out by the McCain campaign. I would call the shirt idea smart campaigning, not dirty. Granted, receiving a free shirt should not weigh more heavily in someone's decision about who to vote for than a candidate's policies and character, but again I really don't see it as a problem, whereas (to me) dishonesty and smearing is a real problem.
Then again, if I was in McCain's current position, I might do the same thing.
In response to both Sam and Dan I agree that McCain's tactics are worse- much worse. However, I still think this doesn't let Obama off the hook...
In response to Dan's argument that this is smart campaigning, of course it is, there is no question whether or not this is a good way of getting recognition and voter momentum. But just because something is effective doesn't make it a just method of campaigning. You say that this act shouldn't effect one's voting decision, but unfortunately, by means of a social cascade, it does.
As for Sam's argument that this is a grassroots movement technique meant to get recognition and share his plans, I must refute that shirts don't promote knowledge of policy, and the only speech was the chanting of Obama's name. Yes, it promotes recognition, but it only gives enough information to check the Obama box over the McCain box, not a warrant behind it.
Now, don't get me wrong, I voted Obama when I received my ballot a few days ago, and to be honest, I would take an Obama shirt no questions asked. However, I find myself frustrated by the countless Obama supporters who know nothing of his policies or plans in office, who write off McCain without any research of how his policies compare. And it frustrates me to know that instead of explaining issues to today's youth, the Obama campaign is taking the easy way out and just working to get the highest amount of voters. In today's election it is hard to choose a candidate because each blurs the lines of what they stand for in order to appeal to the masses. This means one must work to find the differences between the two and decide which they agree with more.
And perhaps my argument is larger than just this incident of subtle coercion which the Obama campaign took part in, perhaps it is disappointment aimed at many of my peers who cannot tell me what made them want to vote for Obama. I feel as citizens we should demand better of our politicians, McCain and Obama. Because as voters we must make objective evaluations of issues and elections. We as Americans, are often compelled to support individuals based on those around us and what we perceive in the media. However, the images of politicians are carefully structured by their parties, and we get very little accomplished by discussing continually how bad McCain is and how great Obama is without backing it up. In a time of financial crisis, decreased US respect abroad and other domestic issues, we should instead act as informed citizens and evaluate issues of the two candidates. Squabbling over negative campaign ads and playing the blame game, only delegitimizes the election. We tend to evaluate elections abroad, such as in Russia, as unfair because people are coerced without an understanding of the issues. This continued finger pointing at McCain is on the same field, and only makes are elections compromised. The assertion that by voting Obama into office on November 4th will put an end to the era of negative campaigns is incorrect, unwarranted and ignores the truth behind the issues. If we are in fact an important part of this election, then we should act as informed voters, and only by moving away from this rhetoric can we begin to actually make an informed and correct political decision.
Post a Comment