The New Poster Child for Unqualified Candidates:”Senator” Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg?

Earlier today, I found out that Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, the 51-year-old environmental lawyer, daughter of President John F. Kennedy and Jackie Onassis (and sister of handsome John Kennedy, Jr.) who has shied away from the political arena for most of her life may be considered to replace Sen. Hillary Clinton for Senate seat. 

Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg with Obama during 2008 Campaign

The niece of Edward and Robert Kennedy. The powerful Kennedy clan is fully behind her rising to the office previously held by her uncle, Robert Kennedy who held the New York seat from 1965 until his assassination in 1968. 

Once Clinton is confirmed to President-elect Barack Obama’s cabinet, New York Gov. David Paterson will appoint someone to fill the seat for two years. Democratic officials say Caroline Kennedy has spoken to New York Gov. David Paterson about the Senate seat. Paterson’s office says that the governor had been approached by several candidates for the job but that he would not discuss private conversations.

Of course, since she took on a much more high-profile role during the presidential campaign and, if she does it, would be more than New York’s junior Senator; she’d have closer ties to the Obama White House than any of her colleagues, a direct line to the East Wing.

Ok, so she´s educated. But what are her qualifications, except being the daughter of a President as a child? She’ll probably last two years, to be replaced by future Senator Rudy Giuliani (he has started to schmooze to Obama with his praises). How hypocritical is the media praising Caroline´s interest, while trashing Gov. Sarah Palin´s credentials? Excuse me that many of us have not gone to the famous liberal Harvard University for the elites. 

I am not complaining. In fact, this is AWESOME NEWS. Give the seat to Caroline. If the Dems appoint Caroline to the Senate, Sarah Palin’s credibility will earn massive points! Palin ACTUALLY has experience! If this happens, anytime a liberal or a media rep (and SNL)  mock Sarah’s qualifications, intelligence, or any other quality, the other side can simply point to Caroline and say, “Yeah, well, let’s talk about Caroline.” I mean, let’s face it…if you’ve ever heard Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg speak (without a script–and most of these politicians who were hyped up…ehrm…), then you know she’s not a very bright woman. And if we’re being totally honest she’s really that attractive, either. So wouldn’t it be perfectly delicious if the Dems unconsciously replaced Sarah Palin as the next national laughingstock with the last surviving member of JFK’s family? *Let me start my childhood signing of the cross á la Catholic*

Sarah Palin is smarter than what the media gave her credit for. But then the media thought that Ronald Reagan was stupid, but Reagan outsmarted them every time. Let´s face it, the global financial crisis were  handled by Harvard and other Ivy League alums. We all know that classrooms and real world are VERY different. So pedigrees and grad school doesn´t really mean a lot when it comes to crisis. It is all about character.

Let us see how “fair” the media will treat her, I hope that they give her as much attention as they did to Sarah.

America, welcome to the  new poster child for unqualified and incompetence: Senator Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg!

2008 U.S. Presidential Elections Synopsis Part 2

The 2008 U.S. election proved that a new dawn for politics has arrived. We now have seen the power of web 2.0 and how it can shape a political landscape. We also saw how the Millenials are engaged. How did this all happen? The answer is two words: MARKETING and MONEY. The rule of the game (anywhere) is the one with the bigger war chest, wins. But there is something else about this election that was also not seen in a long time: STRONG MEDIA BIAS.

We can go on and on (which I will because there will be other things I will be ranting about this election), but for the sake of this page, I can safely say that Obama won because he vastly outspent McCain. Even Chris Cilizza of Washington Post (one of the newspapers who endorsed Obama) agrees with many of us who observed the political circus. 

According to Nielsen Company, from June through November, Obama ran 419,667 ads in local markets while McCain ran 269,992 ads — a difference of nearly 150,000 ads. In the final month of the election, the ad difference was even greater with Obama’s campaign running 210,425 local ads as compared to just more than 97,000 for McCain. Obama also had one-and-a-half times as many spot TV ads than John McCain during the general election season (6/08 to 11/08), double when he started running ads in January during the Primaries.

SPOT TV ADS: June-Nov 2008

Barack Obama	419,667
John McCain	269,992

 

Local Ad Spending by Both McCain and Obama

Other notable campaign facts from Nielsen’s research

• Obama’s ads were on the airwaves over twice as much as McCain’s in the final month before the election (210,245 vs. 97,023 ad buys).
• McCain took early advantage of Obama’s long primary battle with Hillary Clinton, which ended on June 3rd. McCain bought over three and a half times more spot TV ads than Obama in June (26,594 to 7,251), the only month that McCain beat his opponent in that category.
• McCain made a major push with national buys in September, out placing Obama 10 to 1 in cable and network ad buys.
• The two candidates alone combined for almost 850,000 total ad buys dating back to January.

 

Here are some statistics presented by ISU Statistical Graphics Working Group: 

 

Daily Tracking versus Actual Popular Vote From ISU Statistical Graphics Working Group

This figure show results of the daily tracking polls, and the actual popular vote (blue). Main pollsters are colored, so that relative bias can be seen. The trend line is a less smooth through all points. 

 

State tracking results from ISU Statistical Graphics Working Group

The result for each state (blue, red) and polls for each state over the week leading up to the election are shown as a dot plot. From top to bottom, the order of the states is from most Republican to most Democratic.

Median is represented as a black dot, all polls as large white dots, and median of last week’s as a grey dot. Vertical lines mark 5% points difference. 

 

Obama tracking results from ISU Statistical Graphics Working Group

 

McCain tracker from ISU Statistical Graphics Working Group

These figures show the daily tracking results separately for Obama and McCain, and the actual result. Tracking polls low-balled the McCain %.

So, how fair was U.S. Elections this time compared to the 2000 or 2004?

Lesson learned here is that politics still truly local and money greases the machines. It is a dirty world we live and work in.

Media Bias Towards Obama

The mainstream media’s support for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign was so biased that even major insiders are now admitting they were shocked by its depth and depravity.

Last week, Time magazine’s Mark Halperin called the media’s performance during the campaign simply “disgusting.”

Halperin told a panel of media analysts at the Politico/USC conference on the 2008 election, “It’s the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war.”

He added, “It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage.”

According to the Web site Politico, Halperin, who edits Time’s political site “The Page,” zeroed in on two New York Times articles near the end of the campaign that profiled both Cindy McCain and Michelle Obama.

“The story about Cindy McCain was vicious,” Halperin said. “It looked for every negative thing they could find about her and it cast her in an extraordinarily negative light. It didn’t talk about her work, for instance, as a mother for her children, and they cherry-picked every negative thing that’s ever been written about her.”

But the Times gave Michelle Obama red carpet treatment, “like a front-page endorsement of what a great person Michelle Obama is.”

Halperin, a former ABC News political director, allowed that some of the press coverage simply reflected the extreme efficiency of Obama’s presidential campaign.

“You do have to take into account the fact that this was a remarkable candidacy,” Halperin said. “There were a lot of good stories. He was new.”

Obama also had a lot of money and outspent Republican John McCain by more than 2 to 1.

The press never bothered to hold Obama accountable for reneging on his promise to use public financing. McCain kept his promise to do so.

During the campaign, conservatives criticized the pro-Obama coverage, but it had little effect.

Columnist David Limbaugh noted: “Never has that been clearer than in the 2008 presidential election, during which they are covering up rather than covering Barack Obama’s shady past and alliances, his knee-deep involvement in corrupt practices threatening the very core of our democratic system, and his many policy misrepresentations.”

Limbaugh noted that the press went into a tizzy over Sarah Palin’s wardrobe, but ignored extravagances like Obama’s “obscenely idolatrous million-dollar Greek coliseum mirage.”

Now that the election is over, Halperin is not alone in admitting the bias. The Washington Post’s ombudsman recently conceded that the paper’s coverage was skewed strongly in favor of Obama and against the McCain-Palin ticket.