Just a few days ago, pundits and critics alike were quick to dismiss McCain's veep selection as a Republican blunder/even laughable. Palin's appeal to the American people during her speech on Wednesday, turns out, however to be no laughing matter for the Democrats.
During Palin's introduction she painstakingly introduced each member of her family, with primary focus on the males. She first pointed out that her son had been deployed to Iraq and has happily accepted this challenge for the purpose of serving his country. In response, their was a thunderous applaud and the crowd began chanting "U.S.A., U.S.A., ... " The chants were consistent with the theme noted on the placards held high by the attendees: "Country First." First point, Palin and the Republicans are attempting to re-frame the issue pertaining to the war in Iraq, by praising those soldiers who protect this country; thereby, creating a positive response from the audience. Such a response runs counter to the discontent held by a majority of Americans on the same issue when it is framed based on the large number of fatalities and the increased gas prices. Secondly, Palin introduced her husband, as a card carrying union member. Second point, the Republicans are attempting to reach out to working class white males. One point to remember here, as I digress briefly: voters are not voting for Palin, hence, white working-class, uneducated voters who have vowed to "not" vote for a woman, are not planning to vote for Palin, but, are voting for McCain. McCain is still breathing, you know.
Palin's presentation was one that resonated with the average woman, in that she attempted to come across as being a small town mom, who entered the Political scene as a maverick for change. Indeed, her boast about being just your average "hockey mom" received a roar of applause from her audience.
So, what about the elephant in the room, the issue of her unmarried, pregnant daughter? Well, the strategy by the McCain camp was simply to bring her out with the rest of the family, with one addition; the soon-to-be husband and father of the expected child. The strategy was shrewed, in that it promoted family, but, more important it provides a conservative lesson for other families who find themselves in a similar predicament.
So, did the strategy work? Let's take a look at the numbers. Dating back to August 31, 2008, one day after the Obama Speech at the Dem. convention, Obama enjoyed a 49 to 41 point advantage over McCain. However, one day after McCain's speech the eight point differential had been cut in half. Given what we know about the Bradley Effect, what does the Obama camp need to do to regain its lead?
Friday, September 5, 2008
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Palin’s Selection: A strategic Choice or a Republican Blunder?
While pledging my fraternity in college, I learned a poem, “Sermons We See” by Edgar Guest. It appears that the Republicans could learn from this poem. It starts:
"I'd rather see a sermon than hear one any day, I'd rather one should walk with me than merely tell the way. The eye's a better pupil and more willing than the ear, Fine counsel is confusing, but example's always clear… "
The Republican Party’s choice of Sarah Palin as their veep candidate has not come without controversy. First, questions abound as to whether she is a qualified candidate, and by extension, would be ready to serve on Day 1, in the event that Senator John McCain is unable to perform his duties if elected president. Secondly, Palin’s strong religious convictions are deemed to be inconsistent with her teachings, given the reports that her 17 year-old, unmarried-daughter is five month’s pregnant. Media sources reveal that the McCain camp knew of Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy before choosing her as the veep candidate. If the strategy was a calculated one, it is consistent with the camp’s attempt to create an “us” v. “them” political environment, whereby Palin and her supporters take on the label of “us” and Obama and his supporters are relegated to a “them” status. Translation: “us-Americans” vs. “them/others.”
As stated in a previous blog, University of Nebraska Lincoln’s Elizabeth Theiss-Morse, in her research on American National Identity (based on a national random survey), finds that mainly white Americans identify a typical American-citizen as being white and protestant. In making sense of her empirical findings, she uses the story of the slow response to Katrina victims in New Orleans. In other words, the overwhelming majority of those stranded in New Orleans simply did not look like Americans, based on who Americans say are Americans. Rather, they were deemed to be “refugees” in their own country. Additionally, in that same blog, I summarize Michelle Obama’s speech at the Democratic National Convention as an attempt to convince America that she too is an American. She was coerced into making such an appeal to the American public, after she was heavily criticized for stating that "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country." Similarly, Obama’s authenticity as an American has been questioned, primarily due to make-believe stories, namely by conservative networks (e.g., Fox News), that he is not a Christian, rather that Barack Hussein Obama is indeed a Muslim (the use of his middle name served as an attempt to trigger negative attitudes toward Saddam Hussein).
Similar to the strategy to question Barack and Michelle Obama’s patriotism/American Identity, the Republican’s strategy (as it relates to their choice of Palin) may in fact be an attempt to create a racial divide by hoping that the anticipated liberal-media’s attack on Palin’s daughter will result in a closing of the ranks by white Americans. Despite the fact that Obama has vehemently denied any mentioning of this issue, and relegating it to a personal issue, there is no doubt that he will become a victim by association (with other liberals). Recall the case of the Emmett Till murder in Mississippi back in 1955. Despite the fact that the individuals, who were accused (and later confessed) of the murder, were poor/working-class whites, they were still white and thus, other middle-class and aristocratic whites were in support of their innocence, simply because of their race. Similarly, the Republicans hope is that a number of whites will see the liberal media as supporting an African-American candidate, while at the same time attacking a poor white mother (one of their own), whose child is considered to have made a simple teenage- mistake. In short, the strategy is to mobilize white support by casting/framing this story as an “us” v. “them,” scenario.
"I'd rather see a sermon than hear one any day, I'd rather one should walk with me than merely tell the way. The eye's a better pupil and more willing than the ear, Fine counsel is confusing, but example's always clear… "
The Republican Party’s choice of Sarah Palin as their veep candidate has not come without controversy. First, questions abound as to whether she is a qualified candidate, and by extension, would be ready to serve on Day 1, in the event that Senator John McCain is unable to perform his duties if elected president. Secondly, Palin’s strong religious convictions are deemed to be inconsistent with her teachings, given the reports that her 17 year-old, unmarried-daughter is five month’s pregnant. Media sources reveal that the McCain camp knew of Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy before choosing her as the veep candidate. If the strategy was a calculated one, it is consistent with the camp’s attempt to create an “us” v. “them” political environment, whereby Palin and her supporters take on the label of “us” and Obama and his supporters are relegated to a “them” status. Translation: “us-Americans” vs. “them/others.”
As stated in a previous blog, University of Nebraska Lincoln’s Elizabeth Theiss-Morse, in her research on American National Identity (based on a national random survey), finds that mainly white Americans identify a typical American-citizen as being white and protestant. In making sense of her empirical findings, she uses the story of the slow response to Katrina victims in New Orleans. In other words, the overwhelming majority of those stranded in New Orleans simply did not look like Americans, based on who Americans say are Americans. Rather, they were deemed to be “refugees” in their own country. Additionally, in that same blog, I summarize Michelle Obama’s speech at the Democratic National Convention as an attempt to convince America that she too is an American. She was coerced into making such an appeal to the American public, after she was heavily criticized for stating that "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country." Similarly, Obama’s authenticity as an American has been questioned, primarily due to make-believe stories, namely by conservative networks (e.g., Fox News), that he is not a Christian, rather that Barack Hussein Obama is indeed a Muslim (the use of his middle name served as an attempt to trigger negative attitudes toward Saddam Hussein).
Similar to the strategy to question Barack and Michelle Obama’s patriotism/American Identity, the Republican’s strategy (as it relates to their choice of Palin) may in fact be an attempt to create a racial divide by hoping that the anticipated liberal-media’s attack on Palin’s daughter will result in a closing of the ranks by white Americans. Despite the fact that Obama has vehemently denied any mentioning of this issue, and relegating it to a personal issue, there is no doubt that he will become a victim by association (with other liberals). Recall the case of the Emmett Till murder in Mississippi back in 1955. Despite the fact that the individuals, who were accused (and later confessed) of the murder, were poor/working-class whites, they were still white and thus, other middle-class and aristocratic whites were in support of their innocence, simply because of their race. Similarly, the Republicans hope is that a number of whites will see the liberal media as supporting an African-American candidate, while at the same time attacking a poor white mother (one of their own), whose child is considered to have made a simple teenage- mistake. In short, the strategy is to mobilize white support by casting/framing this story as an “us” v. “them,” scenario.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Obama's Big Speech: Erasing Race
Let’s see, backstage for the BIG speech was pretty cool, given that I started the day wondering how I was going to get in, after losing my credentials (although, some seem to think that I’m a bit gullible to think that I loss them)… Either way, I started off, hanging out in what appeared to be some bad seats. That is, until, I figured it out… why not move to the front row, of the stage, given that all of the speakers would be going on stage from that point... WOW! This was BIG! From Jennifer Hudson’s star spangle banner, to Obama’s closing speech. I witnessed it all live and up-close in person. There is one slight problem, I didn’t bring extra batteries… Oh well, just think of this picture as giving Obama an overnight tan!
Obama's acceptance speech may have disappointed some viewers who have become accustomed to his stirring/uplifting style. In a time when so many people are suffering, Obama's speeches have given those without hope, hope. This is self-evident when we look at the response from the black community, as they proudly parade their Obama gear, or engage in uncritical conversation on a daily basis. One can rest assure that come election day, Obama will receive at least 95 percent of the black vote, even if he said that he would repeal affirmative action.
On the last day of the convention, Obama opted to provide substance over his rhetorical/uplifting style. In doing so, the Democrats strategically attempted to reach out to white working class and middle class voters, by invoking what is known as a deracialized strategy. A deracialized campaign occurs when a candidate avoids the use of race-specific issues by focusing on issues that are deemed to be racially transcendent.
In my dissertation I compared the two campaign strategies of former Jackson, MS mayor Harvey Johnson in 1993 and 1997. I argued that Johnson ran a deracialized campaign in 1993, in his failed attempt at becoming Jackson’s first black mayor and a race-specific campaign in his victory in 1997. In applying the deracialization strategy, Obama has attempted to avoid the use of race during his campaign. For example, while many speakers during the convention’s final outing acknowledged the anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King’s famous I Have a Dream speech, Obama decided to provide only a scant reference near the end of his presentation. Such a strategy is quite appropriate, given that blacks only make up 12.5 percent of the total population, and even less of the percentage of registered voters.
Obama's acceptance speech may have disappointed some viewers who have become accustomed to his stirring/uplifting style. In a time when so many people are suffering, Obama's speeches have given those without hope, hope. This is self-evident when we look at the response from the black community, as they proudly parade their Obama gear, or engage in uncritical conversation on a daily basis. One can rest assure that come election day, Obama will receive at least 95 percent of the black vote, even if he said that he would repeal affirmative action.
On the last day of the convention, Obama opted to provide substance over his rhetorical/uplifting style. In doing so, the Democrats strategically attempted to reach out to white working class and middle class voters, by invoking what is known as a deracialized strategy. A deracialized campaign occurs when a candidate avoids the use of race-specific issues by focusing on issues that are deemed to be racially transcendent.
In my dissertation I compared the two campaign strategies of former Jackson, MS mayor Harvey Johnson in 1993 and 1997. I argued that Johnson ran a deracialized campaign in 1993, in his failed attempt at becoming Jackson’s first black mayor and a race-specific campaign in his victory in 1997. In applying the deracialization strategy, Obama has attempted to avoid the use of race during his campaign. For example, while many speakers during the convention’s final outing acknowledged the anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King’s famous I Have a Dream speech, Obama decided to provide only a scant reference near the end of his presentation. Such a strategy is quite appropriate, given that blacks only make up 12.5 percent of the total population, and even less of the percentage of registered voters.
So, I think that the Obama camp hit this one clean out of the park… wait, this was a football stadium… well, the Obama camp scored a touchdown. How? By using a few bible verses here and there to attract evangelicals and by using personal testimonies by real white people who have loss jobs and who have really suffered under the Bush administration. So, don’t take it personal when you don’t see people who look like you on stage, it’s a numbers game. Now, take a number, and wait to see what Prof. Dre’ has coming your way next.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
McCain's Veep Pic, What's Funny?
The 2008 presidential election has created a number of new buzz words and phrases, among them Veep, as opposed to V.P. or vice president. The formal adoption of veep by the media points to the importance of this position to the outcome of the November general election.
Just one day after the Democratic National Convention, the Republican National Convention jumped off with Senator John McCain shocking the American public by naming Sarah Palin, as his veep candidate. I think this was a strong move by the Republicans and somewhat underscores my critique of Obama’s failure to choose Senator Hillary Clinton as his running mate. In short, I do not think that it is as funny as some pundits are claiming, and that Obama’s camp should be concerned.
The Republican’s decision to choose Palin, clearly points to the party’s efforts to reach out to disenchanted Hillary supporters. McCain’s choice was timely, as it came within days of the anniversary of the 19th amendment, which gave women the right to vote. Palin, in her acceptance speech, praised former veep choice, Geraldine Ferraro, and Hillary Clinton for blazing the trail, thereby setting the tone for her place in history (yet, she, unsurprisingly, failed to mention former presidential candidate, Shirley Chisolm who is black). When discussing Hillary, she was quick to mention that, “Hillary left 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling in America, but it turns out the women of America aren’t finished yet, and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all.” This was a clear invitation for Hillary voters to jump on board.
So, why was this move so important, and probably not as dumb as some pundits are suggesting? Well, it appears that the Republicans are looking to take advantage of the Bradley Effect. The Bradley effect occurs when some white voters will simply lie to pollsters suggesting that they will support a well-qualified black candidate, so as to not appear to be racially prejudiced. This is also known as providing socially desirable responses to polls, given our age of political correctness. Here, we need to keep our eyes on those Hillary supporters who tell pollsters that they are undecided. In one study, a statistical analysis testing the Bradley Effect reveals that if a black candidate is not at least 10 percentage points ahead in the polls, then s/he will find him/herself in trouble during the actual election. So, in closing, McCain’s strategy is not to attract/convert every Clinton supporter to his ticket, for that would be laughable. Rather, they seek to convert those ambivalent voters who may possess racially prejudiced views toward Obama, yet are not revealing such biases in their responses to the national polls.
Just one day after the Democratic National Convention, the Republican National Convention jumped off with Senator John McCain shocking the American public by naming Sarah Palin, as his veep candidate. I think this was a strong move by the Republicans and somewhat underscores my critique of Obama’s failure to choose Senator Hillary Clinton as his running mate. In short, I do not think that it is as funny as some pundits are claiming, and that Obama’s camp should be concerned.
The Republican’s decision to choose Palin, clearly points to the party’s efforts to reach out to disenchanted Hillary supporters. McCain’s choice was timely, as it came within days of the anniversary of the 19th amendment, which gave women the right to vote. Palin, in her acceptance speech, praised former veep choice, Geraldine Ferraro, and Hillary Clinton for blazing the trail, thereby setting the tone for her place in history (yet, she, unsurprisingly, failed to mention former presidential candidate, Shirley Chisolm who is black). When discussing Hillary, she was quick to mention that, “Hillary left 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling in America, but it turns out the women of America aren’t finished yet, and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all.” This was a clear invitation for Hillary voters to jump on board.
So, why was this move so important, and probably not as dumb as some pundits are suggesting? Well, it appears that the Republicans are looking to take advantage of the Bradley Effect. The Bradley effect occurs when some white voters will simply lie to pollsters suggesting that they will support a well-qualified black candidate, so as to not appear to be racially prejudiced. This is also known as providing socially desirable responses to polls, given our age of political correctness. Here, we need to keep our eyes on those Hillary supporters who tell pollsters that they are undecided. In one study, a statistical analysis testing the Bradley Effect reveals that if a black candidate is not at least 10 percentage points ahead in the polls, then s/he will find him/herself in trouble during the actual election. So, in closing, McCain’s strategy is not to attract/convert every Clinton supporter to his ticket, for that would be laughable. Rather, they seek to convert those ambivalent voters who may possess racially prejudiced views toward Obama, yet are not revealing such biases in their responses to the national polls.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Day 4 Pre-Obama speech
Security issues prevented folk from driving into the stadium. Rather, the dnc bussed us in... We started off in single lane lines and I swear I think John Lewis , in commemorating the 45th anniversary of MLKs I have a dream speech, wanted us young folk to experience marching, because that was one kuntry mile. [as soon as I wrote this, John Lewis came on stage...eeerie]...
Afer arriving in the stadium, the atmosphere was comparable to a football game... In fact, as I walked through the tunnel I heard the cadences of a drumline... I thought the Boom was in town (smile)...
I stopped blogging to come listen to John Lewis and MLKs children speak. Catch you later... coming up: Will Biden help Obama's ticket? 2. Why "First Black" hurts Obama. 3. Hillary Clinton's endorsement, not embracing of Obama's canidacy. 4. Don't believe the hype, the attack on Rev. Wright. 5. A content analys of Obama's speech.
Afer arriving in the stadium, the atmosphere was comparable to a football game... In fact, as I walked through the tunnel I heard the cadences of a drumline... I thought the Boom was in town (smile)...
I stopped blogging to come listen to John Lewis and MLKs children speak. Catch you later... coming up: Will Biden help Obama's ticket? 2. Why "First Black" hurts Obama. 3. Hillary Clinton's endorsement, not embracing of Obama's canidacy. 4. Don't believe the hype, the attack on Rev. Wright. 5. A content analys of Obama's speech.
Day 3B
Once inside the Pepsi Center, I ran into Political Scientist, Robert Starks. After chatting with him, I decided to start my research process. My research extends from work that I've been doing for approximately 9 years now. While my focus used to be on white racial attitudes, I now examine black intra-racial attitudes. In short, my previous research was in the area of white racism, however now, my focus has been black self-hatred. It's not that simple, but, I have been charged with the responsibility of writing this blog in a way that my grandmother would have understood it. Specifically, I provided a frame for respondents, "currently, blacks lag behind whites in almost every economic and education category," Open-ended-question: what do you think attributes to these disparities? The respondent, then, provides me with an open ended response. Some blacks blame blacks, themselves for their failures, while others blame the system (i.e., structural barriers, such as the lack of educational opportunities).
Given that my access was limited to the periphery of the arena, I was relegated to seeing Bill Clinton on the jumbotron. But, why would I want to hear them? I'm here to do research right? I interviewed 65 people on my first day. Oh yeah, the highlight was meeting Congressman John Lewis, an icon from the civil rights movement. Headed out for Day4. P.S. at the end of the night, I got an opportunity to see Barack, when he made his guess appearance. The climate was very different from the research world that I was restricted to earlier in the day. It was filled with electricity... People are really excited about change... Me, I'm a bit numb... but don't let me rain on your parade. Get EXCITED!
Day 3, DNC
Day 3 was a charm. My credentials arrived in the a.m. I ate breakfast, and caught the hotel shuttle to the Pepsi Center. During our ride to the Pepsi Center I struck up a conversation with a journalist from the BBC, asking whether they focused on American identity during their coverage of Michelle Obama? Without much feedback, I decided to offer my perspective, using my newly developed "message in a minute" (thanks you). Well, the reception was lukewarm, and ultimately she resumed her casual conversation with the woman sitting next to her. After arriving downtown, we decided to foot-it to the Pepsi Center, given the traffic. PERFECT! God is Good! (All the time... If you don't get this (i.e., non-black southern church goers)... keep reading my posts)...
During our trek to the Pepsi Center, I informed her that my colleague at Nebraska had written on who is perceived to be an American in the United States. Based on her research, white protestants are who make-up America (according to Americans). I then said, that's why it was so easy for the Republicans to paint the Obama's as un-Patriotic (translated into Un-American, i.e., non-White, i.e., "them" not "us"), giving the Republicans the edge in a majoritarian election system. Ultimately, her justification of why the media does not talk about this issue alot, is that the "message in a minute" tends to over simplify the dynamics and complexity of race in America, thereby serving as a disservice/exacerbating race relations.
A not-so-brief digression is needed here. From the academic front, while it is good to find a few variables that explain a lot (i.e., variance) in statistical analyses (i.e., parsimony/occam's razor)... we often leave out a lot of much needed dialogue that needs to take place, so that blacks get-it, when working-class whites complain about losing their jobs, and how they think some non-deserving black/Hispanic, received affirmative action/lower wages to displace deserving whites. Similarly, it would inform whites that affirmative action is simple. Once blacks received the vote, they elected officials who looked out for their interest, just like white officials looked out for whites. KEY POINT: For example, as it relates to affirmative action, these officials stopped awarding 100% government contracts (example: custodial services, land scapping...) to white men, based on white privlege. Rather, now, they began awarding some contracts to qualified (many blacks were able to cut lawns and hedges in the 1960s) blacks and WHITE WOMEN. To be sure, this is a zero sum game, meaning, an increase in percentage for blacks and white women, decreases the pecent of contracts given to white men. So, now, 70% of contracts are given to white men, and 30% are given to blacks and white women. Sorry, too much digression: PROCEED TO DAY 3B.
During our trek to the Pepsi Center, I informed her that my colleague at Nebraska had written on who is perceived to be an American in the United States. Based on her research, white protestants are who make-up America (according to Americans). I then said, that's why it was so easy for the Republicans to paint the Obama's as un-Patriotic (translated into Un-American, i.e., non-White, i.e., "them" not "us"), giving the Republicans the edge in a majoritarian election system. Ultimately, her justification of why the media does not talk about this issue alot, is that the "message in a minute" tends to over simplify the dynamics and complexity of race in America, thereby serving as a disservice/exacerbating race relations.
A not-so-brief digression is needed here. From the academic front, while it is good to find a few variables that explain a lot (i.e., variance) in statistical analyses (i.e., parsimony/occam's razor)... we often leave out a lot of much needed dialogue that needs to take place, so that blacks get-it, when working-class whites complain about losing their jobs, and how they think some non-deserving black/Hispanic, received affirmative action/lower wages to displace deserving whites. Similarly, it would inform whites that affirmative action is simple. Once blacks received the vote, they elected officials who looked out for their interest, just like white officials looked out for whites. KEY POINT: For example, as it relates to affirmative action, these officials stopped awarding 100% government contracts (example: custodial services, land scapping...) to white men, based on white privlege. Rather, now, they began awarding some contracts to qualified (many blacks were able to cut lawns and hedges in the 1960s) blacks and WHITE WOMEN. To be sure, this is a zero sum game, meaning, an increase in percentage for blacks and white women, decreases the pecent of contracts given to white men. So, now, 70% of contracts are given to white men, and 30% are given to blacks and white women. Sorry, too much digression: PROCEED TO DAY 3B.
Day 2 at the Democratic National Convention (or thereabout) lol
After a long night in Atlanta's aiport, I was awakened the next morning by a radio talk host (and high school class mate), whom I presume was conducting a pre-interview... but, after I informed him of my inductive approach (i.e., I'll figure out how I'll proceed when I get there, lol), without going into much detail, I think he was deterred (I would have been), assuming that there was not much to talk about... That was perfect, I need to use that strategy often (to get out of assignments). Seriously, he did, however, force me to expedite my plan/agenda for the week. So, I started this blog and I decided what my research would look like.
I was extremely lucky (o.k. blessed, I'm back in MS, lol) to get out of Atlanta, as computer failure shut the airport down. I arrived into Denver, picked up my rental car and was on the road toward the hotel by 2:30 p.m. Only to find out, however, that the woman whom I was supposed to secure my credentials would be going live-on-the-air at 4:00 p.m. Hence, given the melee (i.e., protesters, security check points) around the Pepsi Center (home of the convention), no credentials on Tuesday. Basically, once you're in... you're in. All of this was perfect, because it gave me some time to start blogging. I was a bit apprehensive, because it was my belief that blogging takes away from the integrity/objectivity taught/practiced in the academy. But, one of my colleagues informed me that: "somebody has to demonstrate that there's life on this planet."
I was extremely lucky (o.k. blessed, I'm back in MS, lol) to get out of Atlanta, as computer failure shut the airport down. I arrived into Denver, picked up my rental car and was on the road toward the hotel by 2:30 p.m. Only to find out, however, that the woman whom I was supposed to secure my credentials would be going live-on-the-air at 4:00 p.m. Hence, given the melee (i.e., protesters, security check points) around the Pepsi Center (home of the convention), no credentials on Tuesday. Basically, once you're in... you're in. All of this was perfect, because it gave me some time to start blogging. I was a bit apprehensive, because it was my belief that blogging takes away from the integrity/objectivity taught/practiced in the academy. But, one of my colleagues informed me that: "somebody has to demonstrate that there's life on this planet."
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Baseball, Hotdogs, Apple Pie and Michelle Obama?
On Day 1 of my Democratic Convention experience I found myself stranded in the Atlanta airport. I later retired at a nearby hotel, where I immediately sought out the lounge to enjoy a bite. With about 25 people enjoying food and being festive, I noticed that only two of "us" was watching Michelle's speech. Well, with me being the only African-American in the lounge... It helped to reaffirm my systematic assessment of the challenges that are ahead for Obama...
Baseball, Hotdogs, Apple Pie and Michelle Obama?
Arguably, America's greatest pastime is baseball (unless, that is, you're a Southerner, where SWAC and SEC Football would easily wear that crown). A few years ago, I had the pleasure of visiting Coors Field to witness the Colorado Rockies take on the Boston Red Sox. Unfortunately, on that night, baseball was not my top priority. You see, Kobe Bryant and the Lakers were playing the last game of a playoff series. Thus, I found myself relegated to a bar located inside of Coors Field. The Lakers were soundly defeated on that night, and after watching the game, I emerged from the bar area to watch the final innings of the baseball game. Once inside the stadium, I heard a thunderous roar. WOW! All that for me? ... SURELY NOT (but, good try). As I turned to my right, I couldn't help but notice on the jumbo tron (big screen) a dejected Kobe Bryant, walking to the locker room with his head hung low... I realized then, that the roar was directed at Kobe, given his unpopular status in the state of Colorado at the time. I'm sure you know the story... if not: Kobe was accused of sexual assault on a Colorado woman, for which the charges were eventually dropped.
So much for that, guess what happened next? While everyone else was focused on Kobe, I focused on the batter and the foul ball that appeared to be coming my way... "wait... it is coming my way"... so, as I honed in on it, I headed in the direction that the ball was going, perfectly timing it, using the Wayne Gretzky "vision/field sense" approach... wudda-u-know? ... after being trampled by a few aggressive kids, the ball rolled right into my hand...
Getting back to Kobe and the gist of my commentary, the roar that was released in Coors Field that night, spoke to the "us" v. "them" phenomenon embraced within American culture. It begs the question, "what does it mean to be an American?" This question was at the root of Michelle Obama's speech on August 25, 2008, in the same city that Kobe was jeered and I was cheered (Oh, I forgot to tell you that the fans let out a thunderous roar when I caught that foul ball, NOT!).
As reported on one site following her speech, Michelle Obama declared "I love this country" Monday as she sought to reassure the nation that she and her husband Barack share Americans' bedrock values and belief in a dream of a better future." For me, her speech possessed remnants of Langston Hughes, "I too sing America" and Sojourner Truth's "Ain't I a Woman." This approach/strategy was adopted for the purpose of off-setting previous remarks, whereby Michelle stated, "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country." Following these statements, she was criticized for being unpatriotic, which according to research on American Identity, translates into anti-white (given that non-whites are often seen as not being Americans (see literature on American Identity and its boundaries i.e., Theiss-Morse)).
In off-setting such criticism, Michelle Obama sought to provide a simple story of her life as a typical American. She revealed how she grew up with a hard working father who served as a provider. Her mother was a house wife, who cared for/nurtured the kids. Moreover, she described the close bond that she has maintained with her brother. All of which was uttered, to simply provide evidence that her upbringing is consistent with the American ideals rooted in good family values. In addition to focusing on her life, she sought clearly to equivocate her upbringing to the man whom, although possessed "this funny name" shares the same values as she does; values, as she described, that are deeply rooted in the American Dream of hard work and determination.
So, what do Kobe and Michelle have in common? It depends... it depends on whether Kobe is being embraced as an "us" for his assistance in winning the Gold medal in China... or whether he is rejected as a "them" for alleged violations of one of America's own. (To clarify: If the rejection is color blind, why hasn't R-Kelley been rejected in a similar vein?) In the case of Michelle, it depends on whether she expresses her frustrations for America failing to live up to the true meaning of its creed that "all men [and in recent years, women] are created equal", in what has been coined as radical egalitarianism and similarly, disillusioned liberalism; or whether she is praising America for providing her the opportunity to live out the American dream of hard work and determination. Why not both?
Baseball, Hotdogs, Apple Pie and Michelle Obama?
Arguably, America's greatest pastime is baseball (unless, that is, you're a Southerner, where SWAC and SEC Football would easily wear that crown). A few years ago, I had the pleasure of visiting Coors Field to witness the Colorado Rockies take on the Boston Red Sox. Unfortunately, on that night, baseball was not my top priority. You see, Kobe Bryant and the Lakers were playing the last game of a playoff series. Thus, I found myself relegated to a bar located inside of Coors Field. The Lakers were soundly defeated on that night, and after watching the game, I emerged from the bar area to watch the final innings of the baseball game. Once inside the stadium, I heard a thunderous roar. WOW! All that for me? ... SURELY NOT (but, good try). As I turned to my right, I couldn't help but notice on the jumbo tron (big screen) a dejected Kobe Bryant, walking to the locker room with his head hung low... I realized then, that the roar was directed at Kobe, given his unpopular status in the state of Colorado at the time. I'm sure you know the story... if not: Kobe was accused of sexual assault on a Colorado woman, for which the charges were eventually dropped.
So much for that, guess what happened next? While everyone else was focused on Kobe, I focused on the batter and the foul ball that appeared to be coming my way... "wait... it is coming my way"... so, as I honed in on it, I headed in the direction that the ball was going, perfectly timing it, using the Wayne Gretzky "vision/field sense" approach... wudda-u-know? ... after being trampled by a few aggressive kids, the ball rolled right into my hand...
Getting back to Kobe and the gist of my commentary, the roar that was released in Coors Field that night, spoke to the "us" v. "them" phenomenon embraced within American culture. It begs the question, "what does it mean to be an American?" This question was at the root of Michelle Obama's speech on August 25, 2008, in the same city that Kobe was jeered and I was cheered (Oh, I forgot to tell you that the fans let out a thunderous roar when I caught that foul ball, NOT!).
As reported on one site following her speech, Michelle Obama declared "I love this country" Monday as she sought to reassure the nation that she and her husband Barack share Americans' bedrock values and belief in a dream of a better future." For me, her speech possessed remnants of Langston Hughes, "I too sing America" and Sojourner Truth's "Ain't I a Woman." This approach/strategy was adopted for the purpose of off-setting previous remarks, whereby Michelle stated, "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country." Following these statements, she was criticized for being unpatriotic, which according to research on American Identity, translates into anti-white (given that non-whites are often seen as not being Americans (see literature on American Identity and its boundaries i.e., Theiss-Morse)).
In off-setting such criticism, Michelle Obama sought to provide a simple story of her life as a typical American. She revealed how she grew up with a hard working father who served as a provider. Her mother was a house wife, who cared for/nurtured the kids. Moreover, she described the close bond that she has maintained with her brother. All of which was uttered, to simply provide evidence that her upbringing is consistent with the American ideals rooted in good family values. In addition to focusing on her life, she sought clearly to equivocate her upbringing to the man whom, although possessed "this funny name" shares the same values as she does; values, as she described, that are deeply rooted in the American Dream of hard work and determination.
So, what do Kobe and Michelle have in common? It depends... it depends on whether Kobe is being embraced as an "us" for his assistance in winning the Gold medal in China... or whether he is rejected as a "them" for alleged violations of one of America's own. (To clarify: If the rejection is color blind, why hasn't R-Kelley been rejected in a similar vein?) In the case of Michelle, it depends on whether she expresses her frustrations for America failing to live up to the true meaning of its creed that "all men [and in recent years, women] are created equal", in what has been coined as radical egalitarianism and similarly, disillusioned liberalism; or whether she is praising America for providing her the opportunity to live out the American dream of hard work and determination. Why not both?
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Site Origin
This site originated after an interview with a reporter sparked comments pertaining to the three r's: race, region and religion i.e, southern politics.
Researching the DNC: An Inductive Approach
The scientific approach to research requires an a priori bold conjecture that can be tested with reliable data; followed by inferences used to make generalizations and conclusions. As a political scientist, I have prided myself on ascribing to the aforementioned scientific method. However, it dawned upon me in the early a.m. of 8.26.08, that this approach may not be appropriate for my research geared around the Democratic nomination. It was at this time that I was attempting to explain my research agenda for the DNC to a radio talk show host...
To be sure, the approach used in my dissertation to assess the campaign strategy of a mayoral candidate and the contextual role of the media, did not fit neatly within the scientific method. However, it did help me to develop some important research questions. That said, my efforts to conduct research while at the Democratic convention, takes on an exploratory tenor. For example, do those individuals attending the DNC attribute the economic disparities between blacks and whites to be attributed to blacks, themselves, or the political system? This approach is consistent with my research on system justification ideology. What's to follow, we shall see... thus exploratory research.
To be sure, the approach used in my dissertation to assess the campaign strategy of a mayoral candidate and the contextual role of the media, did not fit neatly within the scientific method. However, it did help me to develop some important research questions. That said, my efforts to conduct research while at the Democratic convention, takes on an exploratory tenor. For example, do those individuals attending the DNC attribute the economic disparities between blacks and whites to be attributed to blacks, themselves, or the political system? This approach is consistent with my research on system justification ideology. What's to follow, we shall see... thus exploratory research.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}