Center of the Universe: Scranton, PA

With the only 1 1/2 months to go, Scranton, PA appears to be the focus of the election. With PA having 21 electoral votes, this state could decide the election. According to RealClearPolitics, (http://new.yahoo.com/election/2008/dashboard) in a recent polls, Obama has 47% of the vote and McCain has 45.3% of the vote. With number like this, it could go either way.

With Pennsylvania possibly determining the White house, could that have been the deciding variable with the VP ticket? Biden, being from PA clearly has a connection to Scranton. Perhaps thats why he may have been chosen over Hillary. Many voters are still wondering with Hillary's popularity, why she wasn't put on the ticket? This VP candidate will either strengthen possibilities to win this state, or backfire as being disingenuous. 

Then we have Palin, she and her family genuinely represent middle America and the average hard-working family. Could her appeal connect deeper with the Pennsylvanians? In the game of politics, it's not so easy to discern what is genuine passion for public service, and what is strategy. Or, are they not mutually exclusive?

Could McCain's new appeal to the middle/working class strengthen his chances to secure Pennsylvania's votes? Is he able to disconnect from the stereotypes that republicans are only for the rich? It seems as if the repubican party is trying to create a new image these days. Could Obama loose Pennsylvania, due to comments make in San Francisco this past year? The stereotype is that democrats are for the working class; however, is a new stereotypes of "liberal elitist" gaining power?

IS IT ALL ABOUT PERCEPTION?

 It appears that the media may have a great influence on this election by how it may cover these issues. Never-the-less lets not under-estimate the individuals of PA, winning votes comes down to how connected the voters feel to the candidate. 

Palin Witch Trial

It is becoming more obvious to me that Hillary Clinton most likely had more respect in the media because of the "covering" of Bill Clinton. Sarah Palin is being attacked from every point of view. The questioning is beyond civil, and the political analysis from the left is more cynical than I could have ever imagined from a group that claims diplomacy is it's highest tenet. Diplomacy and respect is out the window when you are involved in a witch trial.

Recently on an interview with Charles Gibson, he asked some very broad questions. When she asked for more detail in areas of those questions, the political analyst shredded her. Some in the media are asking very general questions, and expecting very "black and white" answers. It's not that simple. And furthermore, when asking "hypothetical" questions, how can one really give an absolute answer without the details of the situation? This seems ridiculous.

As a woman, I cannot but wonder if there is a deep under current of gender issues at the core of these questions. Is the media reflecting an unspoken belief system that still may remain in some of our culture? Beyond politics. Historically, even women were the last citizens given the privilege to vote. And yes, I do have to wonder what the treatment of Hillary would be if Bill Clinton had not been her husband. I would be interested to hear what Hillary would have to say regarding this matter. And, I won't be surprised if Palin is thrown into the water to see if she can swim. 

Peace, Policy, and Presentation?

Both the DNC and the RNC is over. We are aware of the running mates for both tickets, and both parties rally for "change/reformation." So, other than some basic information on both candidates web sites...where are the details of policy? As far as I know, every candidate is for better education, health care, better economy, etc...

CRYSTALIZE?

Other than really seeking out the answers to these questions, is the mass media really informing the public of the details of the issues? I certainly have not been hearing that. It appears (in general) as though the mass media is just one big marketing campaign. I have been hearing ridiculous commentary about "women being to sensitive" to answer certain questioning. How "this administration is tied to that administration," and belittling a candidates years of public service, as opposed to approaching major issues that this country is dealing with.

Who cares so much about time of experience, but as to how their principals were expressed in that experience. And, what are the plans for the future? How are these goal going to be approached? Other than some generic conversation, I am not seeing the details commercialized in the mass media. It appears as is the audience needs to be proactive in their research.

Turn on the T.V. and you get "where to buy this outfit" that the candidates and their families are wearing. This is the restaurant "they" ate at, and here is where "they" vacation. What about the issues? This is a very important election, we have some major issues that need to be addressed. Which candidate is the best path to peace? We need the public to be more informed than ever about the impact of their vote.

Is the mass media reflecting culture? Or is it dictating it? It seems as if image is more important than substance. If that is the case, is democracy really working? Or do we all submit to the collective mind set of the masses? I would hope that each person's vote is based on good information. Not a popularity contest.