SOTU: Ratings down - focus on real time reactions up

Which SOTU did you tune into to?

Source: Pew Research Center

This year's coverage of President Barack Obama's State of the Union Address had its moments. Yet, as Marshall Mcluhan famously said, "the medium is the message."

It seems that many viewers abandoned the more traditional TV medium for the fragmented digital world, where watching the SOTU meant simultaneously gauging and expressing one's own opinion on various social media platforms and websites (which were then amalgamated and regurgitated en masse by traditional news outlets seeking to easily package the largely vauge beast that is "public opinion").

Although SOTU TV ratings were down 11% from last year's address, social media sites were abuzz, and as 10,000 words points out, many of the websites of major news outlets featured partnerships or sponsors to create an interactive and engaging experience.

The common theme: audience reactions.

(See more comparisons of how different news organizations and social  media covered the SOTU here).

End of the Month Blog Roundup!

More on this here via TPM.

The NRA's Political Spending infographic by JLMC. 

First up, The Atlantic's been serving up some excellent and relevant analysis this month:

James Fallows breaks down Obama's Inauguration rhetoric.
Senior Editor, Richard Florida, looks at the geography of gun-related deaths as well as what role gun regulations and factors including the economic, social and political characteristics play in contributing to gun violence.

Tomdispatch gets deep into the Obama cabinet shakeup as well as Defense Secretary nominee, Chuck Hagel and Vietnam via Nick Turse.

A new year,  a new war. Mali: Another country that (probably) most of us have had to wikipedia in recent weeks. Chris Hayes hosts a very comprehensive panel about why Mali matters:

Election 2012 recap: Obligatory Victory Lap Post

By Nathan Rothwell

I remember like it was yesterday thirty years ago.

It was late 2011, and I was writing a political column for a small community college newspaper. The Republican presidential primaries were just on the horizon, meaning that political pundits and the blogosphere at large was about to turn its primary focus to pontification about who would challenge President Obama for his job in less than a year. And I was somewhat lamenting having to write about it.

I was not looking forward to spending months speculating who would win the presidency when I was already convinced how it would unfold. At the time, I made the following three predictions to just about anyone who would listen:

• Mitt Romney would win the Republican primary and earn the presidential nomination
• Romney would eventually select Governor Chris Christie as his running mate
• The Romney/Christie ticket would go on to lose to Obama in November 2012.

As it turns out, I just barely missed going three for three on my predictions. Paul Ryan would ultimately be selected to round out Romney’s losing ticket, but my other two predictions indeed proved true.

I’m sorry, I’ve put my horn away now – there will be no further tooting. I only bring this up to say that while I did expect Obama to defeat Romney for a good while, what I did not expect was the triumph of liberal candidates and ballot measures that would also earn clear victories last night.

Maine, Maryland, and Washington became the first three states in the union to approve same-sex marriage by popular vote, while Minnesota voters struck down a constitutional measure that would have defined marriage as only between a man and a woman. Washington also made news, along with Colorado, for ending 70 years of marijuana prohibition.

Elizabeth Warren defeated Scott Brown to become the newest Senator from Massachusetts, earning a sweet revenge over the Republicans who blocked President Obama’s attempt to name her director of the newly-created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Tammy Baldwin became America’s first openly gay Senator by defeating Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin. And Republican senatorial candidates Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, they who believed the rights of unborn cell clusters trumped those of rape victims, were soundly defeated by Claire McCaskill and Joe Donnelly, respectively.

Last night proved to be a night of clear victories for the left in America, which I hope will be remembered by the public and our media long after our post-election hangover. Jon Stewart of The Daily Show joked last night that after two years of campaigning and roughly $3 billion spent on the process, we’re right back where we started. 

To a large extent this is true; the House of Representatives remains in Republican control, while the Democratic majority in the Senate remains not enough to overcome the GOP’s blatant filibuster abuse and rampant obstructionism. So while Mitch McConnell’s dream of basing the entire Republican party platform on making Obama a one-term president has failed, there is little doubt that they will cling to these congressional numbers as an excuse to now make Obama a lame-duck president.

But for now, America appears to have made its choice. Obamacare lives. Rape apologists and “traditional marriage” proponents have been decidedly smacked down in the polls. Marijuana prohibition will soon earn its place alongside alcohol prohibition as one of the more bizarre chapters of American history. And Mitt Romney, assuming his wife’s words were true, will fade off into the political sunset forever.

Go ahead and enjoy your victory lap, Democrats. You’ve earned it. Just don’t forget that when you’ve finished, the Republicans will be waiting with an army of excuses and redoubled resolve in their obstructionism.

Obama vs. Romney: Presidential Campaign Branding

By Heather Turner

Branding undoubtedly plays a role in influencing voter perceptions of Presidential candidates. Ultimately, voter reactions to campaign images is subjective. That being said, if the election was solely based on image and branding, then President Barack Obama, is clearly winning.

Mitt Romney's camp is incredibly lacking in artistic or mind-blowing campaign posters (my search for iconic Romney art didn't go well). Rather, many of the images associated with Romney's campaign have typically been mashups, created by satirists and pretty much anyone with a sense of humor and Photoshop. In this way, Romney's campaign has been its own worst enemy and despite six years of preparing to run for the office of the Presidency, Team Romney still can't seem to inspire an image that is anywhere near as rhetorically powerful as this:

 coulda been 

a tramp stamp

Even when reproduced as a tattoo on a random appendage for some (probably drunken) reason, it is instantly recognizable as a rendition of the "Hope" poster designed by artist Shepard Fairey. Fairey's poster was adopted by Team Obama after the independently produced stencil portrait became viral. At the same time, to Conservatives, elements of Obama's branding, including the Fairey stencil, confirmed their perceptions of Obama being communistic and even a messianic figure of sorts to the political left wing.

The 2008 election set a high bar for image and branding excellency, as the most viral presidential candidate was also the one who got elected. In fact, Obama's election brought on a period of extreme "Baracksploitation," in which the President's image was applied to pretty much anything, from sushi, to t-shirts, to action figures, to hash bricks. The 2012 election was already going to be an uphill battle for anyone running against our resident Presidential icon.

However, whether or not a candidate's campaign "get it right" with their branding, candidates of both parties adopt rhetoric that draws from ubiquitous American national myths concerning 'God and country' to appeal to the electorate, as crafting a clear moral agenda is also a major aspect of Presidential branding. The national myths invoked by the previous four presidents reflects the complex historic and nationalistic, yet pseudo-religious identity of America.


Read the rest at Spin and the Media.

Binders full of women, empty of ideas

By Nathan Rothwell

Romney's gone viral (again). Just not in the way he wants.

Those in the market of turning soundbites into Internet memes were not disappointed by last night’s presidential debate.

President Obama and Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, squared off in a town-hall style debate on Tuesday where they fielded questions from the audience. Both were asked by a young woman how their respective administrations would tackle inequalities in the workplace – specifically, the fact that women on average make only 72% of what their male counterparts earn.

Both candidates gave wildly different answers. For his part, President Obama mentioned the very first bill he signed into law upon becoming President in 2009; the Lilly Ledbetter Act, which gives women full opportunity to sue their employers if they experience undue discrimination. As Obama explained, before the Act passed women who were being unfairly paid had only 180 days to discover the discrimination and file a lawsuit. Even if they had no way of discovering the discrimination until after this 180-day period, they were out of luck. The Act signed by Obama allowed for a new 180-day period to begin each time a woman received a paycheck that unfairly paid her lower wages based solely on her gender. 

While Obama directly answered the question of unequal pay by referencing the Lilly Ledbetter Act, Romney dodged it almost entirely when given a chance to respond. Instead, he revealed that he initially couldn’t find enough capable women to serve in his Cabinet upon becoming governor of Massachusetts in 2003, and in doing so coined the phrase “binders full of women”:

“…I said, ‘Well gosh, can’t we find some women that are also qualified? And so we took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet. I went to a number of women’s groups and said ‘Can you help us find folks?’ and they brought us whole binders full of women.”

As the New Yorker put it, Romney’s “binders full of women” phrase provoked instant fascination with debate-watchers nationwide. Facebook groups, Tumblrs, and Twitter accounts devoted to Romney’s inartful phrase captured the attention of thousands, and could very well spell doom for Romney in the polls. Yet as much fun as it is to poke fun at the imagery, Romney’s answer should sound alarms among voters for two important reasons.

As Election Day nears, the trolls are out in force

By Nathan Rothwell 

Several days ago I received a physical letter in the mail from a (possibly) crazy person. Perhaps my recent blog about responding to Obama Derangement Syndrome may have struck a chord with somebody?

A two page rant from an allegedly "speechless" author

A person by the name of “Darnell Wooster” (whose apparent address is nearby, but I won’t reveal publicly) sent me an unsolicited letter that appeared to be a printed copy of a chain email containing purported evidence of (then) Senator Barack Obama’s hatred for the American flag and “The Star-Spangled Banner,” in the form of quotes from an alleged appearance on “Meet the Press” in 2008.

Nothing was written by Mr. Wooster himself; rather, it was signed by someone named “Dale Lindsborg.” I have no idea who Darnell Wooster is, but a Google search for “Dale Lindsborg” quickly revealed an exact replica of the letter I’d just received. It was nice to have proof that this “transcript” of Obama’s remarks was indeed a hoax, but from the moment I opened the letter I could tell I was dealing with the work of a troll.

As you might have already gathered from the letters pictured above, a number of things stand out (formatting errors courtesy of “Dale” and/or “Darnell,” not me):

“From Sunday’s 07 Sept. 2008, 11:48:04 EST,   Televised “Meet the Press” the then Senator Obama      was asked about his stance on the American Flag. ”

You read that right: “Dale” timed Obama’s appearance on “Meet the Press” timed to the second. Which seems more likely --- a scenario in which the letter’s author performed the enormous amount of research to determine the exact second Obama was asked a question about the American flag in 2008? Or a scenario in which “Dale” simply made up that timestamp? Keep in mind, this author evidently enjoys alternating between normal text and giant, bold, improperly spaced letters for stylistic purposes.

Ann Coulter: "Civil Rights are (only) for Blacks"

By Nathan Rothwell

Conservative darling Ann Coulter, who I can’t believe is still allowed on TV, made remarks this morning that hopefully disqualify her from future public appearances.

(h/t to C&L's Videocafe for the video)

Appearing on This Week with George Stephanopoulos to promote her latest book in a 75,869-part series that blames liberalism for any and all of America’s woes, Coulter claimed that gay people, women, and immigrants have “commandeered” the “civil rights experience” in America. 

When Stephanopoulos pressed her on the matter, the following exchange actually, and almost unbelievably, took place:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Immigrant rights are not civil rights?

COULTER: Umm…  [pause] No. I think civil rights are for blacks.

Coulter’s remarks were part of a discussion of the Republican and Democratic parties’ attempts to earn the Hispanic vote. President Obama leads Republican challenger Mitt Romney 70% to only 22% according to Latino polling group Latino Decisions, while a more recent poll conducted by Fox News Latino gives Obama a 60% lead to Romney’s 30%. No matter whom you believe, Romney is still doing worse than John McCain (31%) in 2008, and George W. Bush (44%) in 2004.

While Coulter is not an elected Republican official or official Romney campaign spokesperson, comments she made several weeks ago paint the picture that she’s trying very, very hard to influence his campaign with her own ideas. So while I have a hard time believing Mitt Romney wants any part of Coulter’s “civil rights are only for blacks” comment, I’m happy to hold her to the standard of Romney spokesperson, since she seems to fancy herself one.

There are two major problems with Team Romney’s Coulter’s statement. The first, obviously, is that civil rights aren’t just for African-Americans – they’re for everyone.

A Guide to Living With (and Responding to) Obama Derangement Syndrome

By Nathan Rothwell

If this is how President Obama routinely appears to

you in your also routine nightmares, you may suffer 

from Obama Derangement Syndrome, or ODS.

If you or someone you know is suffering from ODS,

consult this article immediately.

It's way cheaper than a psychiatrist.

In 2003, Fox News stormtrooper correspondent Charles Krauthammer coined the phrase “Bush Derangement Syndrome.” When critics of the Bush Administration took it to task over its misadventures in foreign and domestic policy, Krauthammer dismissed the criticism as symptoms of a faux medical condition that causes "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of George W. Bush."

Here we are a decade later, and one can easily see how “George W. Bush” can be replaced with “Barack Obama,” and the term “Obama Derangement Syndrome” can just as easily be applied to some of the Obama Administration’s most outspoken detractors. Many an uninformed voter exists who can’t have a rational conversation about Obama without launching into a tirade of either unquantifiable or improvable belief statements (Obama HATES the troops), or attacks stemming from a realm of pure fantasy (Obama waived the work requirements for those lazy welfare freeloaders!) So while it pains me to lend Krauthammer any credit, this Obama-version of his “derangement syndrome” concoction seems to best describe some of these people.

A form of O.D.S. found its way into my inbox recently in the form of one of those “Why OBAMA Should GO!!!” emails making its rounds in the American cyberverse. It pains me greatly that chain emails comprise any sort of public discourse in this country, let alone political discourse. However, it did grant some insight into the world of those who despise President Obama, but aren't particularly artful in explaining why. Their core beliefs are backed by discredited statistics, and sometimes no facts at all.

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once famously said that “everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” In this spirit, I thought it might be fun to respond to the source of the chain email with facts that fly in the face of the “reasons” that President Obama should be voted out of office. And in the spirit of promoting informed debate during this election season, I’ve reprinted responses to some of the more common unfounded criticisms surrounding Obama. While many have made their minds up to hate him no matter what, I hope that there are some people out there who might reevaluate their convictions when presented with information stemming from outside the Fox News bubble of myopia.

Anyway, onto the fun. 

Cartoon of the day: Don't let Obama turn you old

DNC coverage Democracy Now! style

Santorum Suspends Campaign

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum announced he was suspending his campaign at a press conference in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. His exit from the campaign all but assures that Mitt Romney will be challenging Barack Obama for the presidency in November.

It's unclear why he picked today as the day to step aside, although a look at the polls in his home state offer a clue. According to Public Policy Polling, Romney was leading Santorum in the polls among likely Pennsylvania voters by a score of 42 to 37 percent. Many people argued that Romney's campaign would not survive if he could not win his home state of Michigan, so perhaps Santorum saw the doom facing his own political future if he couldn't win in Pennsylvania.