Saturday, November 24, 2012
Role of Families/Role of Polls & Pundits - November 28th
Answer one of the following questions:
Question #1: What role did the candidates’ wives and families play in this campaign and how does it compare to previous elections? Do you think that family members are effective surrogates for presidential candidates? Refer to the Burns reading to support your response as well as references to two media sources.
Question #2: What role did consultants, pundits, special interests, and polls play in this election? Refer to at least one of this week’s readings as well as your media sources to support your answer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Candidates’ wives play an ever-increasing role in campaign season. They act as surrogates for their husbands, speaking out about their platforms and decisions. Candidates’ wives are also required to show the personal side of their family life, often humanizing the cold politician vibe of their husbands. This election cycle, the media has portrayed two very politically and socially active wives in Ann Romney and Michelle Obama. Burns writes, “some of the roles journalists have used to frame the first lady and to measure her performance include presidential escort, leader of social protocol, social advocate, policy maker, and political advisor” (6). Both Ann and Michelle have played multiple roles over the campaign, focusing on fundraising and targeting women voters. Candidate’s wives are no longer simply a pretty face standing next to their husband, they are now extremely active and competent in their political roles.
ReplyDeleteFor example, both Ann Romney and Michelle Obama have been strong leaders to their respective campaigns. In the article, “Spouse Appeal: Wives Help Obama, Romney” it describes that, “Mrs. Obama…made her debut as the leader the Obama campaign's new "It Takes One" program, which asks supporters to do one thing to promote the campaign — and to engage someone else to do likewise. Campaign officials said Mrs. Obama will participate in many "It Takes One" events as she travels the country, recruiting neighborhood team leaders, stopping by voter registration events and speaking to groups of women.” Rather than following her husband around during his stump campaigning, Mrs. Obama is active in her own right, spearheading organizations independently. Ann Romney has also contributed her skills to her husband’s campaign. In the same FoxNews article, it states that, “Mrs. Romney, for her part, has increasingly been out front, fielding questions on issues at the core of her husband's campaign — his choice for vice president, his refusal to release more tax returns, and more. She's also a potent fundraiser for Team Romney.” Clearly, Ann Romney took an active part in aiding Mitt Romney’s campaign. She demonstrated her personal intelligence by speaking about politics and social issues on her own.
Although both women are very knowledgeable and successful surrogates for their husbands, the media and American society still view them through the lens of traditional gender roles. Burns explains, “when used as a personification frame, a first lady or candidate’s wife becomes the embodiment of gender ideologies and represents for journalists ideological definitions of American womanhood. This frame allows journalists to assess a woman’s qualifications for the first lady role based on her performance of gender, which is then conflated with her ability to perform the first lady’s duties” (Burns 9). While Mrs. Romney and Mrs. Obama are strong political leaders in their own right, they still need to exude an air of femininity and traditional gender roles. For instance, every election year, both potential first ladies submit a recipe to the Family Circle Cookie Bake Off. While this has nothing to do with their husband’s qualifications for president, it is still an important feature of the campaign. By demonstrating their domesticity, they show the country that they are skilled women who can cook and care for their family.
DeleteAnn Romney and Michelle Obama play to these gender expectations by spreading their message to female dominated media texts. Both women were interviewed by Good Housekeeping about their family lives, with very little information about politics included in the articles. Christine Haughney of the New York Times writes, “In Good Housekeeping’s November issue…Michelle Obama reveals how she and her husband make time to exercise together every morning and how her husband has fit in time to be an assistant basketball coach to his daughter Sasha’s team... Mrs. Romney describes the early days of dating Mitt Romney when he worked as a nighttime security guard at the Chrysler Corporation, and how he still writes her love notes, and brings her lilacs on Mother’s Day” This information has no value to the politics of the election campaign, and yet it is considered important. These articles connect the average American person, especially women, to the candidates’ wives. They are shown as ordinary, hard-working women just like everyone else. Overall, the candidates’ wives do play a large part in campaigning, connecting with targeted audiences, especially female voters. They are successful and intelligent surrogates to their husbands’ campaigns and we will see them become increasingly more so in the future.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/20/spouse-appeal-wives-help-obama-romney-campaigns/
“Spouse appeal: Wives help Obama, Romney.” Associated Press.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/business/media/michelle-obama-and-ann-romney-campaign-in-the-magazines.html?_r=0
“Wives Take the Campaign to Newsstands.” Christine Haughney.
Stephanie Griffin
ReplyDeleteDuring this year’s election, Michelle Obama and Ann Romney, along with their families, played a key role in growing the likability of their candidates. Not only are the wives there to make their men seem more personable, but they [along with the families] are also their strongest support system throughout the campaign. Furthermore, both women understood their chances of becoming the next first lady-a position that has “fascinated by [since] the beginning of this nation’s history” as Lisa Burns refers to Martha Washington’s first appearance in her journal article, Press Images of First Ladies (Burns 3). Specifically, we have seen the wives make guest appearances on talk shows as part of the campaign strategies for the candidates, however, eventually the press has the responsibility in exhibiting certain aspects behind what the women do during the campaigns. While Michelle Obama continued to play her first lady role and exhibit what has been accomplished during her husband’s term (along with what else needs to be done), Ann Romney as the challenger’s wife mostly needed to enhance her husband’s likability with others through the way she saw Mitt.
As many know, Michelle Obama has become a loved first lady over the last four years, as her husband was president of the United States. Overtime, it has been the press playing a role in displaying “first ladies/ ideas, images, and words [into] the public arena” (Burns 6). Although some critics have argued during the 2008 campaign, she came across has “timid” and “angry,” overtime she learned to adapt to the first lady role and have an important aspect in her husband’s term as president. As Kate Dailey of BBC News describes, “’Even though she is able to look like she is above the fray, of course she is political. She's out there campaigning, she's out there fundraising, she's one of the most popular political figures in the country…remember the contradiction of first lady-hood is that the less overly political a first lady seems, the more politically effective she is,’ says Kantor” (Dailey). The way the press frame first ladies can also determine their level of celebrity (Burns 11). With this, Michelle Obama has become almost like a celebrity within American politics as the first African American first lady, and her continuous projects for child health and military families. It was important for her specifically during this election to take advantage of the persona she has established in the public eye over the past four years to win her husband into a second term. With this, we noticed Michelle discussing many of the accomplishments Barack and his administration have made during his first term as president. As Gregory Krieg of ABC News describes, “…first lady Michelle Obama [said] Americans ‘are growing to understand just how much we’ve accomplished [appointing] to the end of the war in Iraq, a planned departure from Afghanistan, and an economy ‘on the brink of collapse, that’s now consistently creating jobs…our grandparents can afford their medicine,’ she said. ‘Our kids can stay on our health care until they’re 26 years old. I could go on and on and on’” (Krieg).
Griffin Part 2-
ReplyDeleteMichelle continues to state in another interview of the future of another term for Barack as president. She states, “There is nobody that is less satisfied and knows that there's more to do than my husband," she said. "Yeah, there has been a lot accomplished but Barack, of all people, knows that there's still folks hurting and there's still work to be done (Bruce). Overall, as Burns describes, celebrity is one of the many aspects the press try to frame first ladies around- and throughout her time as first lady, Michelle’s celebrity status has been utilized for her advantage to connect with many Americans across the country. Michelle, along with her daughters, certainly have played an important role as surrogates during Obama’s campaign because nobody can show as much of support as one’s own family. Despite what the press may try to frame, the value behind their family stems much more than what politics have shown. Seeing a president as a “family man” has helped increase the likability and relateability of these politicians. Ann Romney needed a different strategy as the challenger’s wife in this year’s election, but still stuck to the importance of the Romney family’s support for Mitt’s campaign. We still notice the press framing other aspects of her individuality as Mitt’s wife and potential [new] first lady.
Griffin Part 3-
ReplyDeleteOne aspect Ann Romney exhibited throughout the 2012 campaign was her role as a potential first lady for the next four years. With this, we notice the press frame much on her gender roles as a conservative and private mother and housewife- much of which can be related back to generations of first ladies such as Bess Truman and Jackie Kennedy who seemed more preserved from the press media and wanted to maintain their private lives (Burns 5). As Burns states, “…gender ideals have evolved and shifted in response to historical, political, and social forces; and different conceptions of the ‘ideal American woman’ have competed to define gender norms and roles. By using gender ideals to frame the first lady’s activities, journalists reinforce the idea that the performance of the first lady’s duties is always gendered” (Burns 8). What was somewhat difficult for Ann during this year’s campaign was to connect fully with American women because some may argue the gender roles of woman have changed since she was growing up. As Noreen Malone exemplifies, “It is this nostalgic embodiment of a time when such choices were possible, perhaps, that explains her rising popularity in 2012, when the rotten economy has done a number on traditional gender roles and left many feeling uneasy about that upending. ‘If you listen carefully, you’ll hear the women sighing a little bit more than the men,’ Mrs. Romney said in her convention speech, mining exactly that nexus of gender and economic anxiety… [it’s] the moms who always have to work a little harder, to make everything right’” (Malone). Although she is correct that some moms may have to work harder to support their families, the statement almost undermines the value of women’s work ethic. Although the economy has affected employment of both genders, most women now have to work as their husbands do to make ends meet. Still, as Mitt’s wife, her undermining role was to exhibit his “family man” self. As the NY Times article, “A Bigger Role on Behalf of the Romney She Knows” states, “With her husband reluctant — or unable — to tell his own story in a compelling way, she has made the task of humanizing him a personal mission. But it is late in the game, and polls show that the Obama campaign has effectively substituted its own, unflattering version of Mr. Romney” (Barbaro). Regardless of his loss, Ann along with the Romney family still played an important role as surrogates (as Michelle and the Obama daughters also did) during the campaign because, as stated earlier, families of these politicians are the biggest support system behind any candidate. Without these individuals, it would be difficult to see a personable, likable, and relatable side of politicians these days.
Works Cited
Barbaro, Michael, Ashley Parker And Sheryl Gay Stolberg. "A Bigger Role on Behalf of the Romney She Knows." The New York Times. The New York Times, 04 Oct. 2012. Web. 27 Nov. 2012. .
Bruce, Mary. "Michelle Obama Opens Up on Role in President's Campaign: 'There's Still Work to Be Done'" ABC News. N.p., 10 Oct. 2012. Web. 26 Nov. 2012. .
Burns, Lisa M. First Ladies and the Fourth Estate: Press Framing of Presidential Wives. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press. 2008.
Dailey, Kate. "Michelle Obama: Her Four-year Evolution." BBC News. N.p., 4 Sept. 2012. Web. 26 Nov. 2012. .
Krieg, Gregory J. "Michelle Obama: It’s Getting Better All the Time." ABC News. N.p., 6 Sept. 2012. Web. 26 Nov. 2012. .
Malone, Noreen. "Ann Romney, Mitt’s Right-Hand Girl." The New Republic. N.p., 25 Oct. 2012. Web. 27 Nov. 2012. .
This year within the 2012 presidential election we saw, more than any other year, the importance of not only family members but surrogates from outside of the family as well. When thinking about this topic a major thing that needs to be discussed is whether or not it s truly beneficial to have family members act as surrogates during an election season.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I feel that more often than not this is not beneficial. I believe that professionals who are much more educated on the elections should be representing the candidates over the family member. Although utilizing family such as wives and children may help portray the true character of the man or woman running, they are more often than not, not as educated as a professional staff member.
An example used often when discussing this topic is one that I believe proves the point that surrogates are often not as useful as professionals is the use of presidential candidate’s wives. Both Ann Romney and Michelle Obama are respected across the country but in my opinion this in no way means they should be representing the republican or democratic candidates as a resource. Yes, through the action of the president’s wives and families the candidates are constantly being represented but not on a completely professional level.
“Since candidates’ wives generally do little more than allude to foreign and domestic policy, leaving details to the principals and their surrogates, any compare-and-contrast analysis of these two very different women necessarily must skew toward the soft and frothy.” (Groer 1) This states that although the candidate’s wives were utilized often throughout the election they were more often than not given topics that were either not as controversial or demanding.
While I do find this statement true one thing that was vastly different about this election was that both Mitt Romney and Barak Obama utilized their wives when it came to the topic of women within America. It clearly makes sense to do this because often men speaking out women’s issues is sometimes taken the wrong way, but giving the wives of both candidates such a large responsibility was unprecedented. With that being said it is important for all candidates to not only be educated on the topic of women’s health but also be genuine when either debating or discussing it. But is it right to only utilizing the women as surrogates when the topic is about women? “By using gender ideals to frame the first lady’s activities, journalists reinforce the idea that the performance of the first lady’s duties is always gendered” (Burns 8). During this election it was quickly seen early on through the conventions of both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party that Michelle Obama was going to me more respected when it came to the topic of women. Ann’s speech was seen by many to be “forced,” and in no way genuine. Within this context I believe Michelle Obama served as an appropriate surrogate but Ann Romney did not.
ReplyDeleteMany voters also critiqued Ann Romney on not only the contents of her speech but also how she delivered it. Two negative aspects of her speech were, “Lack of humor…. stiffness or woodenness in use of body.” (Trent 359)
In conclusion, I feel that while it is important to include family and spouses of future candidates within the election and campaign process it is important to remember that they are not the “professional staff.” Especially within the office of president, individuals within the family should not be put responsible made responsible for the success of an election.
Burns, Lisa M. First Ladies and the Fourth Estate: Press Framing of Presidential Wives. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press. 2008.
Groer, Annie. "Michelle Obama and Ann Romney: Compare and Contrast." Washington Post. N.p., 21 Oct. 2012. Web. 226 Nov. 2012. .
Trent, Judith S., and Robert V. Friedenberg. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011. Print.
Throughout history, wives of candidates have continuously straddled the line between fulfilling the expectations that come along with holding the female role in a family and ensuring to remain politically active. The undertakings of all females in society today are overshadowed by the societal expectations tied to femininity. Females are expected to fulfill the maternal role within the family and to act in a way that falls into the norms of their gender roles. Journalists reporting on the actions of candidates’ wives expect each female to fill this role. In her book entitled First Ladies and the Fourth Estate, Lisa Burns explains, writing, “Just as first ladies are bound by a tradition dating back to Martha Washington, journalistic practices rooted to a great extent in nineteenth-century gender prescriptions continue to define media coverage of first ladies“ (Burns 162). This fact is especially important for females under such scrutiny as the wives of presidential candidates in the 2012 election.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the 2012 election, both Michelle Obama and Ann Romney played imperative roles in their husbands’ campaigns. Both took on the responsibility of aiding in the publicizing of the “softer side” of their spouse. Each was interviewed by numerous magazines and television shows, sharing facts about their husband that would make them more relatable to the American public. Michelle spoke to Good Housekeeping about Barack having coached her daughter’s basketball team, while Ann spoke with Woman’s Day about her first date with Mitt (Haughney). In an article published on CNN.com, University of California professor Catherine Allgor explains, “We Americans believe that a wife can tell us about her husband in ways we can't discern from ads, stump speeches, or even debates: about his personal morality, his character, how he reacts to crisis -- in short, who he really is (Allgor).
The families of each candidate were also an extremely important part of their campaign. Throughout numerous media outlets, candidates were featured with their entire family, whether it was Obama with his two girls or Romney with his pack of children and grandchildren. The thoughts that the candidates do have a family of their own really personified each of them. People are much more able to relate to a smiling man with his loving wife and children by his side than the image of a political machine that many people had come to know each candidate as.
Although wives and families do play an important role in a president’s campaign, the effectiveness of said family members as surrogates would not be very high. Most American citizens feel that the surrogacy of family members is a conflict of interest in the fact that most family members would be biased in favor of the opinion of their family member running for office. For this reason, family member surrogacy is not as affective as the surrogacy of a non-family-member.
Compared to previous elections, the idea of a family was much more important in the past elections. Due to the economic struggles our country is facing, families have been struggling financially for years. They want to know that they are electing a candidate that knows of their struggles, that is faced with the same issues and problems as they are. Through personifying each of the candidates by affiliating them with the common “Family Man,” voters have an easier time relating and are in turn much more likely to vote for said candidate. Historically, families have been a huge aspect of the presidential presence. From the Kennedys to the Obama girls in the 2008 election, the family of the president becomes the most highly publicized example of American living. Therefore, families of political candidates are just as important ever in the political campaigns. In an article for Time Magazine addressing the weeks after the inauguration in 2009, Nancy Gibbs and Michael Scherer write, “The White House became as much Michelle Obama's stage as her husband's” (Gibbs, Scherer). This being said, in their choice to elect a specific president, citizens are not only showing their approval for a candidate, they are showing their approval of all that he stands for and everything that makes up who he is as an individual. A family of the president is a family of America.
DeleteWork Cited
Allgor, Catherine. "What Candidates' Wives Are Telling Us - CNN.com." CNN. Cable News Network, 5 Sept. 2012. Web. 27 Nov. 2012. .
Burns, Lisa M. First Ladies and the Fourth Estate: Press Framing of Presidential Wives. DeKalb: Northern Illinois UP, 2008. Print.
Gibbs, Nancy, and Michael Scherer. "Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews." Time. Time, 21 May 2009. Web. 27 Nov. 2012. .
Haughney, Christine. "Wives Take the Campaign to Newsstands." The New York Times. The New York Times, 08 Oct. 2012. Web. 27 Nov. 2012. .
This presidential election and more importantly the election results have shown light on the pundits. Pundits are often glorified on television and radio as those who has greater knowledge of the election that the average American does not have. Reporters and former politicians alike are viewed as intellectual professionals who possess an understanding of the candidates, the campaigns and the American public. This election and results questioned how truly knowledgeable and therefore influential these pundits are. Conservative pundits especially were seen to be off the mark with most predicting a Romney victory or at least a close electoral race. In actuality Obama won by over 100 electoral votes. If these pundits are that much more knowledgeable than public how come they were so wrong in their predictions? The election proves that just because someone has a loud voice in the media, it does not mean that that voice is any more informative than others. On The Daily Show John Stewart makes a point of showing a clip of Newt Gingrich saying, “The odds are very high I’m going to be the nominee” before the primaries, which did not turn out to be true. Stewart goes on to say, “So that guy was way off. It doesn’t matter what he thinks, right? But it does.” As Stewart and the election results suggests, the people deemed to be experts in the media are not really experts and don’t really know that much more than the American public. Stewart continues, “One thing we learned is that punditry is like musical chairs. The only difference is in punditry when the music stops, nobody ever moves the [freaking] chair. They just keep adding more chairs” ("The Daily Show with Jon Stewart) Here Stewarts suggests that no matter how many times a pundit is incorrect in their predictions they are not held accountable. And while more and more pundits keep being incorrect, more people are popping up in the media and being labeled pundits. Pundits are becoming less accountable as sources of information as more of them become accessible to us.
ReplyDeletePolls on the other hand are becoming a great predictor of election results – well, most of the polls. Traditionally polls are conducted over the phone, either from live calls or robocalls, which are automatic recordings. This year saw a rise in the online poll. Nate Silver explains in a recent post on his blog FiveThirtyEight, “As Americans’ modes of communication change, the techniques that produce the most accurate polls seems to be changing as well. In last Tuesday’s presidential election, a number of polling firms that conduct their surveys online had strong results. Some telephone polls also performed well. But others, especially those that called only land-lines or took other methodological shortcuts, performed poorly and showed a more Republican-leaning electorate than the one that actually turned out” (Silver). As has been seen throughout the election, the American cultural reliance on internet has been an important aspect of the campaigns, so it is of no surprise that the internet was important in regards to polls. With more and more Americans living online and with greater advancement in internet technologies, it is not outrageous to believe the notion that the online polls may become the more dominant form of polling in the future , especially if they are producing more accurate results. Nelson says, “Technological advancements have called the future of random digit dialing (RDD), the standard method for telephone surveys, into question, presenting campaign pollsters with their biggest challenge for the future – how best to reach prospective voters” (Nelson, 66). It would make sense that the future is in online surveys. Even if online polls become more abundant, that does not mean the accuracy would continue. Like the pundits and telephone surveys, more online polls give more areas of error. This election could be an exclusive case; there were a limited number of online polls number put out by accomplished, unbiased companies.
Polling and pundits go hand in hand. If a pundit gets a hold of an inaccurate poll and bases his election analysis off of that poll, then he appears less credible as a pundit. For example two days before the election the NBC/WSJ poll had Obama at 48 percent and Romney at 47 percent. They quote a pollster associated with the poll as saying, “It’s a dead heat” (Murray). But looking at another poll, that same pollster could have come up with very different information. With the overwhelming amount of polling numbers, it is hard to figure out which polls to trust as being well done, just as it is difficult as to what pundits should be trusted for careful and critical analysis. While the media often focused on the polls and the pundits, in the end they were not great indicators of election results. Perhaps we are heading to a point where there is too much information available to us that were unable to distinguish the good from the bad.
DeleteWorks Cited
Murray, Mark. "Final National NBC/WSJ Poll before Tuesday: Obama 48 Percent, Romney 47 Percent." First Read on NBCNews.com. NBCNews, 4 Nov. 2012. Web. 27 Nov. 2012. .
Nelson, Candice J. "Polling in the Twenty-First Century - Part Past, Part Future." Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. Ed. Richard J. Semiatin. Washington DC: CQ, 2008. N. pag. Print.
Silver, Nate. "Which Polls Fared Best (and Worst) in the 2012 Presidential Race." NYTimes Blog: FiveThirtyEight. New York Times, 10 Nov. 2012. Web. 27 Nov. 2012. .
"The Daily Show with Jon Stewart: Democalypse 2012: What Doesn't Kill Us Makes Us Stronger Edition - Media Accountability." Hulu. Comedy Central, 05 Nov. 2012. Web. 27 Nov. 2012. .
Kimberly Rizzitano
ReplyDeleteThough the presidential candidates are the stars of the elections, their families play key supporting roles in the campaigns. For this 2012 election we observed a lot of family involvement for both the Obamas and the Romneys. The First Lady’s position has a variety of roles. As outlined in the reading, “Over the years first ladies have performed a variety of public and private roles from hostess, escort, and volunteer to advisor and policy maker. Because this is a gender role, there are social norms and expectations associated with its performance,” (3, Burns). These women are expected to participate in many roles once their husband is in the presidency and also on the campaign trail. When it came to Obama’s campaign Michelle’s role was to maintain the image and to support her husband’s goals and viewpoints. Since Obama is looking to be reelected, the ground work had already been laid in 2008. Her aim was to sustain the image that was created of change and moving the country forward as well as ensure voters that the country was going in a positive direction under Obama’s leadership. Since Michelle has been continuously in the media for four years as the first lady she is already well known to the public and press. She was able to use this to her advantage as well as her involvement in charities and organizations to bring positive media attention to the Obama campaign and allow her to be even more of an asset. Michelle is also a powerful effective speaker. The Huffington Post reported that her speech at the DNC electrified the crowd. She made a point to assimilate Obama to the audience and how he is a man who achieved the American dream through hard work. “But the point was clear as she weaved a tapestry of their early years together, when money was tight and times were tough,” (Michelle Obama DNC Speech Electrifies Crowd, HuffingtonPost.com). Her ambition was to create an image of a simple loving man with her personal anecdotes of how he was not born into money, unlike Romney though she did not mention him the entire time. Newsweek also reported her speech a success claiming though it was predictable that she spoke about the human side of Obama rather than the political, it was effective and powerful and it was obvious the crowd was emotionally moved (You Aced It, Michelle Obama,TheDailyBeast.com). Essentially it was important for her to prove her points about Obama in 2008 once more but to also show the importance of why he should remain in office. By the positive response of the audience and the press throughout the campaign, it could be concluded that she was successful in her position as a surrogate.
Ann Romney by comparison was new to the national floor. Her aim on the campaign was to create an image of Mitt Romney as a family man and one was for the average citizen; essentially to humanize her husband and to make him relatable to the audience. Romney had often been criticized as being robotic. However, when given the opportunity on Live with Kelly and Michael, Ann spoke alongside her husband and talked about him as a man not a politician and showed her affection and their bond. Many press articles spoke of the appearance as a success while others like the NY Daily News said it had the capability to leave viewers feeling a little uncomfortable due to over sharing (Romneys Play Up Soft Side in TV Interview, NYDailyNews.com). Unlike Michelle, Ann had to dispel negative images of Romney and work against already preconceived notions of him. She had to build a “cool factor” about their family like the one that is around the Obamas. Newsweek’s Daily Beast reported Ann’s climb in likability on the trail especially in April. Ann found herself playing a similar role that McCain’s wife Cindy played in 2008. Cindy had a similar struggle of humanizing her husband and bringing up the likeability factor as well as being relatable. In the reading, First Ladies and the Fourth Estate, it mentions how important a likable image is to a president and how the First Lady has assumed a responsibility to support it and project it to the press so that the first family is framed in a positive light (7, Burns).
DeleteEach family’s children also played a role on the campaign trail. However, while the Obama girls were there to be seen and to give an image of family, Romney’s sons partook in speaking on behalf of their father to crowds of voters. Since the Romney boys are of adult age they were better able to aid their father in a surrogate fashion. George Bush’s daughters also were responsible for upholding a family image when their father was running for office like Obamas. They must seem respectable and likeable to the public. We also can see a similarity with the Clinton family. It’s interesting to note that candidates that have been successful in obtaining office have had young daughters which were able to create an image of family innocence that was ultimately successful.
Works Cited
"Ann Romney Is Getting Cooler." The Daily Beast. Newsweek/Daily Beast, 10 Oct. 2012. Web. 28 Nov. 2012. .
Burns, Lisa M. First Ladies and the Fourth Estate: Press Framing of Presidential Wives. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press. 2008.
Frazier, Mansfield. "You Aced It, Michelle Obama." The Daily Beast. Newsweek/Daily Beast, 05 Sept. 2012. Web. 27 Nov. 2012. .
Lamire, Jonathan. "Romneys Play up Soft Side in TV Interview ." New York Daily News. New York Daily News, 14 Sept. 2012. Web. 28 Nov. 2012. .
Siegel, Elyse. "Michelle Obama DNC Speech Electrifies Crowd." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 04 Sept. 2012. Web. 27 Nov. 2012. .
The candidates’ wives and families played effective roles in the 2012 campaign. I believe that over time, the role of wives and families has become increasingly more important to the success of the campaign. With a positive light shed on women more so than decades ago, we see the first ladies actively advocating for their husbands during these races.
ReplyDeleteA prime example of when both Ann Romney and Michelle Obama played an effective role in the presidential campaign this year was during the National Conventions. Each gave a captivating speech in which they got to share personal stories and show our country who their husbands truly are as men and not just presidential candidates. Their passionate words came straight from the heart and each speech portrayed the husbands in such a positive, loving way.
For much of this campaign, Mitt Romney was highly criticized and deemed unapproachable and almost appeared as unfriendly or standoffish. Ann Romney spoke about how her and Mitt Romney met and told the story of how they fell in love. I think her role as a surrogate was so effective because by sharing this story, America saw a different side of Mitt. He seemed much more relatable and more of a common man. When she spoke of their sons and family as a whole, that again was an advantage for Mitt Romney. In a Politico video titled, “RNC attendees react to Ann Romney speech,” audience members shared their feelings on Ann’s speech. One man described it as “a good mixture of humanity, professionalism, and mom and apple pie.” (Politico)
In Burns’ reading “First Ladies and the Fourth Estate: Press Framing of Presidential Wives,” Burns writes, “In over two hundred years a handful of women have shaped the first lady position through their personalities and their performance of her many roles. These women have been asked to live their private lives in the glare of the public spotlight, their every move subject to scrutiny.” (2) In First Lady Michelle Obama’s DNC speech, she also shared her love story with Barack. She was able to talk about the past four years, but she still did it in a way that showed our President as a father, husband, and hard-working common man. She also appealed to women voters and mothers, a major factor in this election, when she said, “I say all of this tonight, not just as First Lady, no, not just as a wife; you see, at the end of the day, my most important title is still mom in chief.” (ABC News)
ReplyDeleteBurns’ reading also discusses the idea that, “First ladies have been routinely positioned by the press to be role models for American women, which resulted in their emergence as public women, political celebrities, political activists, or political interlopers.” (155) Throughout the past four years, I believe that Michelle Obama has really come into her own and molded herself into a positive role model for our country separate from being the wife of the president. Her effort and personal success is certainly an advantage for the president because she proved herself to be a major force in the functioning of our country and government.
Both women truly opened up and shared personal stories over and over throughout the campaign trail. Ann Romney frequently discussed her battle with multiple sclerosis, while Michelle Obama reminisced of her struggle growing up in poverty. I think their stories are eye opening and touching, and make political figures and celebrities a lot more real. At the end of the day, the president of this country is always just a human being, like everybody else. The first families convey that message so often.
Works Cited
Burns, Lisa M. “First Ladies and the Fourth Estate: Press Framing of Presidential Wives.” DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press. 2008.
“RNC attendees react to Ann Romney speech.” Politico. 28 August 2012. Web. 27 November 2012.
“Michelle Obama at DNC: 'How Hard You Work' More Important than Income.” ABC News. 4 September 2012. Web. 27 November 2012.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteMatthew Struzzi
ReplyDeleteBlog 9
The role that consultants, pundits, special interests, and polls played in this election was huge part. Political consultants, pundits, special interests, and polls have become increasingly more popular over the past couple of decades. In fact, many political candidates, “From George Washington’s day forward, has turned to a group of advisers for advice on getting elected and often for advice on governing. Perhaps the most outstanding of America’s early political consultants was John Beckley, a close personal friend and key political adviser to Thomas Jefferson” (Trent, 354). It is really fascinating that these concepts and people have been around now for centuries. Political consultants do a lot for a candidate during the campaigning process. For instance, “During Jefferson’s bids for the presidency, Beckley wrote campaign material on his behalf, arranged for its distribution in key states, and organized a speaker’s bureau on behalf of Jefferson” (Trent, 355). Political consultants, pundits, and other political team members usually do most of the work for the candidate and they are the ones who handle all of the issues as well as making sure the candidate has a nice image. For instance, to go along with this idea, a Huffington Post article states, “More generally, consultants do the work that the candidates don't want to touch. Candidates, their families and their friends love to talk about positive themes, Sweitzer said, because they tend to believe in themselves and what they have to offer the electorate. They’d rather leave the grimmer view of humanity to the consultants. ‘Consultants know their role,’ said Sweitzer, ‘which is that we'll do the dirty work’” (Huffington Post, 1). It seems like, the role of these consultants and pundits have not really changed since this job had started. It seems that consultants today play the same role that they did back when they were helping out Thomas Jefferson.
Matthew Struzzi
ReplyDeleteBlog 9 continued
This shows further that the roles of political consultants, pundits, special interests, and polls play a huge part in the campaigning process. A New York Times article comments on how large and important of a role political consultants play for political candidates when is states, “His [David Axelrod] title as White House senior advisor did little to capture his full importance to President Obama. His voice, and political advice, carried more weight than most anyone else's on the president's payroll. He was Mr. Obama's top campaign strategist in the 2008 elections. Mr. Axelrod had played a major role in framing the message of the domestic agenda, from the economic stimulus plan to health care. He had devoted far less time to foreign policy, given the amount of time the president spends dealing with the nation's fiscal crisis” (New York Times, 1). Again, this goes to show that there is more than just the candidate. There is a whole team behind them including advisers who have specific titles and roles. Without these people the campaign would not run as smoothly. The campaign needs as many intelligent and well-informed people as possible, such as Mr. Axelrod who had a “background rooted in almost entirely politics”, in order to not only advise the candidate, but to also help the candidate’s image and message (New York Times, 1). The New York Times article also stated that not only did, “Mr. Axelrod also help decide which fights to pick and which ones to avoid, making him a leading voice in setting the political tone in Washington,” but he also “rejected the comparison, saying that he is more of a protector of Mr. Obama's image and message than a policy maker or strategist intent on remaking the country's political DNA” (New York Times, 1).
As you can see, all of the previous ideas and aspects of a campaign play a large and important role in the process of political campaigning. Without these things, a campaign would not really be very appealing nor would it really be successful.
Works Cited
"David Axelrod.” New York Times. N.p., 13 Jan. 2011. Web. 27 Nov. 2012.
Trent, Judith S., and Robert V. Friedenberg. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011. Print.
“Political Consultants Rake It In.” Huffington Post. N.p., 5 Jun. 2012. Web. 27 Nov. 2012.
The candidates’ wives and families play a very important role in the campaign. There has been no set guidelines ever made for the roles these individuals should play. So these roles are always changing. Both of the candidates’ wives Michelle Obama and Ann Romney served various purposes during their husbands’ campaigns. During these campaigns these individuals serve as great surrogates for the candidate. Both of these women portrayed who their husbands were outside of simply being politicians. Since likeability is an important part of winning an election, both Michelle Obama and Ann Romney played up their husbands’ likeability.
ReplyDeleteCNN discussed the roles the candidates’ wives during the campaigns. They discussed that in an interview Ann Romney had done with The View. They had asked Ann about her opinion on abortion and her response was that she is prolife like her husband but she is not the one running for president so her opinion isn’t the most important. The analysis being interviewed stated that this is one of the privileges of being the candidates’ family member because they are allowed to dodge certain topics if they’d like too. This clip on CNN also discussed Michelle Obama and her interview on Kelly & Michael. The analysis discussed that it is also important to play up the likeability of these women as well. The analysis stated some viewers will think “well I like her and if she married this candidate then he can’t be all that bad” (CNN).
In the past the wives of the candidates have responded in different ways on how to present themselves to the public. As stated in Burns writings; “The position of first lady is not outlined in the Constitution, yet it has been a part of the American presidency since inception”. Many of the first ladies have been open with the public and made it a point to even have press secretaries, and others have stayed out of the public eye. Both
Michelle Obama and Ann Romney were very public about themselves and about their relationships with their husbands. This approach is much more beneficial to the candidate as well as to the possible first ladies during the campaign.
ReplyDeleteFamily members are very effective surrogates. In the political realm it can be difficult to see a candidates true character because of the constant criticism they receive from the opposing party. Therefore having family members who are able to discuss how they are outside of the political spectrum could really do wonders for a candidate. Having a family member be a surrogate is valuable because they can discuss the characteristics they admire about the candidate, this could include how passionate they are to help others, or how loving they are. These type of talking points could not be said from the candidate themselves because they would look overly confident in themselves, whereas hearing a family say these things seems much more genuine. Family members can also discuss more personal topics such as how the spouses met. Topics such as these make the candidate seem more personable and this could appeal to a wider audience as well. Some voters may not be updated on all the political issues, but if they see a family member say heart warming things about a candidate it may sway them to vote for them. Family surrogates can also appeal to specific voters. For example Ann Romney and Michelle Obama had the potential to reach out to the women voters. CNN also published an article discussing Ann Romney being interviewed on her challenges with multiple sclerosis. There are many individuals who also have MS and this made Ann Romney seem very relatable as well. The main purposes of family surrogates are to be a support system for the candidate and to promote the candidates’ likeability.
Works Cited
Burns, Lisa M. First Ladies and the Fourth Estate: Press Framing of Presidential Wives. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press. 2008.
"CNN Video on Facebook - CNN.com Video." CNN. Cable News Network, 18 Oct. 2012. Web. 27 Nov. 2012. .
Wallace, Gregory. "Ann Romney Shares Her MS Story with Supporters in Florida." CNN Political Ticker RSS. N.p., 20 Oct. 2012. Web. 27 Nov. 2012. .
Throughout time, the roles of a candidates wife and family has grown more crucial every year. It is hard to realize that there was a time were the candidates wives’ only purpose was to stand beside her husband and wave to crowds as he performed. Today, the president’s wife has became one his main surrogates, delivering speeches all over, such as the national conventions. The president’s wife main objective is able to show the world a different side of the candidate by humanizing him. However, in this years election, we see that their wives touch upon a plethora of issues.
ReplyDeleteAnn Romney played a crucial role in the 2012 campaign. Her job was to show her husband in a different light, to which many middle class Americans believed he was out of sight. In one her most important speeches at the party’s nominating convention, we her talk about their marriage and how Mitt was there for her as she struggled with health problems. She talked about how the two supposedly had a “story book marriage”. With the challenges of raising five children with MS and Breast Cancer, she explained that their marriage is far from this and definitely constitutes a real one (Murse). Ann was able to humanize her husband and their marriage by making it more relatable with the middle class citizens. In Burn’s “Fist Ladies and Fourth Estate”, she explains how these women must be “asked to live their private lives in the glare of the public spotlight” (Burns 2). This is a perfect example in Ann Romney’s case how it may be tough to talk about these extremely personable issues, like MS and Breast Cancer, however it worked to her advantage in helping her husband’s image.
Michelle Obama also played an extremely important role in the election. Michelle had a much more difficult task this year after she had already shown the world how great of a husband and father he was. This year, she had to show the world how he is fit to lead the country for four more years. She talked about many of these issues in the national convention where she was able to “describe her husband as a grounded, devoted man driven to build better lives for American children, implying he knows more about economic changes than a wealthy son of fortune like Mitt Romney ever can” (Kantor). Her efforts seemed to prove well with the victory of her husband over Mitt Romney months later.
President’s families and family members are the greatest surrogates he can find. With such a close personal connection the candidate, people will trust them. With their speeches, their family members can show all different sides to himself that appeal to people in all different demographics and regions. For instance, if a president has low likabillity ratings with middle-aged women, his wife is perfect in this situation. As Ann Romney had in the election, they will provide meaningful and loving stories to show a side that would appeal to them, even if they must reveal personal stories to the public. The president’s wife could arguably be one his most important surrogates.
Works Cited
ReplyDeleteBurns, Lisa M. First Ladies and the Fourth Estate: Press Framing of Presidential Wives. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press. 2008.
Kantor, Jodi. "First Lady Strive For Carrying Image." The New York Times. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Nov. 2012. .
Murse, Tom. "Ann Romney's Role." About. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Nov. 2012. .
Phil Nobile Blog #9 - Part 1 of 2:
ReplyDeleteIn comparison to previous elections, I believe Michelle Obama has served as more of an icon than elections prior, due to her association with celebrities as framed by the modern media. According to First Ladies and the Fourth Estate: Press Framing of Presidential Wives, written by the extraordinary Lisa M. Burns, the author suggests that the press has attempted to define the “ideal American woman” since the beginning of America, and that “journalist’s notion of gender are drawn from competing ideologies that seek to define womanhood” (Burns 8).
I believe this ambiguous definition of an American woman has become a core issue of the 2012 campaigns. This is due to their voting prominence, as highlighted by Christine Riordan’s op-ed called Woman power could decide 2012 from Politico. The author says “the power of the female vote looms large,” and that “women have the opportunity to shape the election, based on the power of their votes particularly in the battleground states.” With this power, the question of women’s roles have become a forefront topic, and, like Burns states in her book, the media spent a good portion of news coverage attempting to define these roles.
As for family members serving as surrogates, I think they can be truly effective to a campaign in many ways. One of them is adding a human element to the campaign, one that the Romney family desperately could have used more of.
Phil Nobile Blog #9 - Part 2 of 2:
DeleteAlthough the Romney campaign had a media blackout for the final month of the election, a heartwarming story was published by CNN delving into details about personal occurrences in Romney’s life that most did not know. The article Romney on faith, family and private life shows the readers a lens most never saw when it came to the Romney’s.
The CNN article takes an excerpt from Gloria Borger’s documentary Romney Revealed which highlights when Ann Romney was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1998 and the effect on himself and his family, among other personal moments. At one point, the article says “so with one of the couple's five sons still at home, Romney started doing the household chores, picking up food at the grocery store and doing whatever was necessary” (Bohn, Dunst & Yager). This personal element would be completely absent had it not been for Romney’s family.
Some may argue that he rode this emotional story of his often, but the reason moments like these during campaigns are so successful is the absence of political affiliation. For a moment, however brief, people can unanimously acknowledge a touching example of humanity, and it is this moment that can blur political ideologies and beliefs.
Bohn, Kevin, Melissa Dunst, and Courtney Yager. "Romney on faith, family and private life." CNN 01 10 2012, n. pag. Print. .
Burns, Lisa M. First Ladies and the Fourth Estate: Press Framing of Presidential Wives. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press. 2008.
Riordan, Christine. "Woman power could decide 2012."Politico [Washington D.C.] 12 10 2012, n. pag. Print.
This election offered us two women who were able to take their role as a candidate’s wife to help the campaign in ways that exceed each of their successors. In this 2012 election both Michelle Obama and Ann Romney were looked upon with adornment and each f them were gifted the utmost respect from the American people. It is true that the American public has always had a fascination with first ladies that is matched by no other nation, but this year the wives were able to effortlessly elevate their significance on the campaign trail more so than any elections past. An opinion article published by CNN suggests that women are able to offer valuable insight into their husband’s character and reflects on the successes of Dolley Madison: “It would not be until Dolley Madison became the figurehead for her reticent and uncharismatic husband, James, that a new role for the first lady was born.” It is clear through this example that wives are a crucial player in a campaign to make presidential hopefuls more approachable. The author continues, “We Americans believe that a wife can tell us about her husband in ways we can't discern from ads, stump speeches, or even debates: about his personal morality, his character, how he reacts to crisis -- in short, who he really is.” A separate article published by The Daily Beast echoes these assertions by offering that, “In this world, however, wives still play a key role in fleshing out the man behind the brand. Voters look to the missus for a peek into a contender’s heart and soul—a glimpse at his core character.”
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Dr. Burns’ piece I found it interesting that I could find so many articles about first ladies and their speeches, their political aspirations, and other politically motivated articles on major new sources. I had never noticed – probably because of my age – but according to the research done by Dr. Burns, reporters and their stories have historically, “restricted women’s political influence to domestic matters.” (Burns, 158) Domestic matters were limited to recipes, fashion, and children and similarly to current stories – their husbands. Burns continues by explaining the significance of “gendered framing” and the influence it had on candidate’s wives, but I have to disagree that women are still falling victim to “gendered framing” in news outlets. I do recognize that there are still numerous articles in female driven news outlets, but I think this is for different reasoning. Burns concludes that, “Relegating first lady stories to women’s publications implies they are newsworthy primarily for other women,” (Burns, 160) which I do agree with but I don’t think that this is a negative thing. I think that having articles in a section primarily read by the female electorate can only help a campaign.
When looking back at the CNN article mentioned earlier, another point that the author made was that first ladies are given so much attention simply because they are women and they can reach a different voter than their husband, often times. The article reads, “But one of the reasons they have their spot on the program is that their husbands' campaign managers also think they have a second source of authority -- they are women.” Their male counterparts no longer herd female voters to the polls, women are voting independently of their husbands and they vote in large numbers. The female voter base is a huge target for any campaign so in a national race the female vote can make or break a candidate. I think first wives are a crucial aspect to a successful campaign in a modern election. The Daily Beast classifies the women in a category very similar to their husbands, having comparable skills and value. “Like the candidates themselves, the spouses bring different strengths and weaknesses to the game. They fuel expectations and satisfy longings, and they often become the repository of voters’ hopes and fears about society writ large. More than a few wind up adorably labeled as their husbands’ ‘secret weapon.’”
DeleteIn my opinion, if a campaign lacks a strong female voice willing and able to become the object of American affections, with the power to persuade on behalf of her male candidate then the campaign lacks a clear shot at victory.
Cottle, Michelle. “First Lady Fight!” U.S. Politics, The Daily Beast. 9 Nov. 2012. Web. 25 Nov. 2012.
Allgor, Catherine. “What Candidates' Wives Are Telling Us”. CNN Opinion, CNN. 5 Sep. 2012 Web. 25 Nov. 2012.
Burns, Lisa M. “First Ladies and the Fourth Estate: Press Framing of Presidential Wives.” DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press. Print. 2008.
The candidates’ wives played an important role in this election. Throughout the campaign, they acted as surrogates and humanize the candidate. While being a main support system for their husbands, they had their own agendas. According to Professor Burns, “Over the years first ladies have performed a variety of public and private roles from hostess, escort, and volunteer to advisor and policy maker. Because this is a gendered role, there are social norms and expectations associated with its performance” (3). The wives prepare to take on the role of the first lady by acting as role models to the women they encounter and boosting the likability of their husbands.
ReplyDeleteThe wives in this election were very active. Just like the candidates, the first ladies began to receive a variety of media coverage that has changed from the 1900s until today. “Media coverage of first ladies has evolved over the years and played a significant role in shaping public expectations regarding the performance of the first lady position” (6). By gaining this coverage, the candidates are constantly receiving exposure on behalf of their spouses. The wives are showing that they can fill the “traditional” roles, as well as the nontraditional roles. An example would be Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” movement. While her husband was in office, she created this program to help with childhood obesity. Her strong leadership skills have shown that she can be independent, while performing the “traditional” tasks of a first lady. Her successes link together with the President, which increases ideas of how a Presidential family should be.
Ann Romney also made her presence known during this election. Since many people called Mitt stiff and not relatable, Ann’s job was to make the people believe he was a kind and caring person as much as she did. She appeared on many television talk shows right beside him, providing stories about their past and his accomplishments. In the article “Ann Romney Takes Over Campaigning Duties Ahead of Debate,” Ann and his family provided that different side to him. “The wife of the Republican presidential nominee appeared with three of Romney’s 18 grandchildren, offering amusing anecdotes about family dynamics in a speech that was focused more on personal stories than on policy proposals” (Nelson). Since Mitt was constantly enforcing his plans and proposals, it was important that Ann focused on Mitt in other ways to resonate with the people who were undecided.
Although the family members are usually effective surrogates, sometimes things they say might put the candidate at risk. An example would be in the article “Michelle Obama: Husband is ‘Good Debater’.” As we were taught in the beginning of the semester, it is always a good tactic to downplay the expectations of a candidate. In an interview with CNN, Michelle Obama did the opposite. A day before the first debate she said, “He doesn’t need much advice. He’s been doing this for quite some time…He’s a very good debater” (Meckler). Michelle’s confidence boosted the morale of the Obama supporter’s for that day, but probably left them angry the next day. Obama didn’t fulfill the expectations, and Romney supporters were happy to see Obama perform poorly. Michelle knows what Barack is capable of, but too much of a sure thing didn’t turn out in their favor.
The candidates’ wives and families have the potential to be the most effective surrogates. Although Michelle Obama showed one fault, more positives outweigh the negatives. During this generation, the wives have become celebrities based on the amount of coverage they receive. According to Burns, “In the case of first ladies, celebrity status makes these women public figures in their own right and affords them the agency to act independently of their husbands” (11). While they are seen as individuals, everything they do reflects the candidate and the campaign. They are looked up to by other women, and can communicate their husbands' ideas in ways that women want to hear. The wives have become very popular, being exposed in stories about their accomplishments, speeches, family, fashion and hospitality. This popularity can be used to benefit the candidate if used in the proper way.
DeleteWorks Cited
Burns, Lisa M. First Ladies and the Fourth Estate: Press Framing of Presidential Wives. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press. 2008.
Meckler, Laura. "Michelle Obama: Husband Is 'Good Debater'." Wall Street Journal. 2 Oct. 2012. Web. 28 Nov. 2012. .
Nelson, Colleen M. "Ann Romney Takes Over Campaigning Duties Ahead of Debate." Wall Street Journal. 2 Oct. 2012. Web. 28 Nov. 2012. .
In the 2012 election campaign, the election seemed to not only be about Barack and Mitt, but also Michelle and Ann. Both of the wives played a key role in this election period, and had a large impact on how the campaign turned out. It was very clear from the beginning that each of the wives was given specific and focused purposes on the campaign trail. They were used as tactful and strategic sources to better their husband’s chances of winning the election. Ann Romney’s role in the election was to humanize her husband. In an article from The Guardian, it explains how well Ann took on her job for her husbands campaign, “On the campaign bus and the convention dais, she regularly succeeds in translating Romney for Romney, in capturing his best side, his faithfulness and dependability.” (McCarthy). Throughout the entire campaign Mitt Romney was portrayed as someone who wasn’t relatable to the average American. He was deemed as cold, stand offish, and often robotic. Ann’s purpose was to change everyone’s perception of him. She was his testimonial to why he should be our president, and the glimpse into the endearing father and husband that we all should love. An important aspect about Ann that is discussed in the article from The Guardian is her ability to be funny and jovial. The article explains, “Unlike her husband, she can make a joke she's told a hundred times sound newly surprising and funny.” (McCarthy). Her ability to fare well with the media and with the voters was a crucial part of the Romney campaign. This seems to parallel with one of the point in the Burn’s reading. As explained in the reading, “First ladies are supposed to be comfortable socializing with kings and queens and movie stars, yet they must also be able to identify with “average” Americans. (Burns 7). Ann Romney has to take on this exact role. She had to be able to carry herself at dinner parties with influential and esteems leaders and businessmen, but also be able to be well perceived during stump campaigning.
ReplyDeleteMichelle Obama, also definitely had to also take on the roll of being at ease among both celebrities and average Americans, but differed from Ann in how she was to promote her husband. Her role is very different from her job four years ago. Four years ago her mission was to explain why we should elect her husband, this time around her role was to make us believe in him again. In a CBS news article they explained that Michelle’s role was,” It's all about trying to recapture some of that enthusiasm of four years ago by getting people to actually come out and vote.” ( Plante). Michelle has the tendency to be well received by the public so she was important tool to Barack campaign. While his popularity rate has gone down, her job was to remind him why we fell in love with him in the first place. Her role is so significant because she was a direct part of his presidency but never really seen negatively. The CBS article goes on to say, “"She can have the greatest political effect when she seems like she's actually above it all," Kantor said.” (Plante). During the campaign Michelle had to restore the enthusiasm and hope that was generated four years ago. Her main job is reinsuring the American people that Barack is the right choice and he will continue to do right by the people of the United States.
Using wives as surrogates is definitely an effective task for Presidential Campaigns. There are several benefits in choosing the candidates wives as surrogates. One main reason that we often spoke about during class is the idea that the media is not going to be has harsh on the candidates wives as they are on the candidates themselves. They make great diffusers in situations where their husbands may be more harshly attacked. They have the ability to talk up their husband that comes off as a loving and endearing wife, as opposed to if their husbands were to talk about themselves. Ann and Michelle can brag about their husbands so that they don’t have to do it themselves. This takes away from the candidates sounding pompous and arrogant. Michelle Obama is the perfect surrogate because she truly embodies our vision of a First Lady. As explained in the Burns reading, “ Journalists have positioned the first lady as a media celebrity, as the embodiment of a cultural ideal of American womanhood. For the press, in some ways the first lady functions as a barometer of women’s social and political status, reflecting cultural views of American womanhood.” (Burns). Michelle Obama is the epitome of what we see as the ideal women of her generation. She is obviously a charismatic, intelligent, and successful women on her own. Yet, she also takes on the role as a loving and caring mother. She is dedicated to raising her family and has been quoted many times saying that her most important role is being a mother. She is well received by the American people because she is able to portray with the ease the struggle of many women. She found a balance between the private and the public, and ability to do so I believe will make her one of the most iconic first ladies.
ReplyDeleteWorks Cited
Burns, Lisa M. First Ladies and the Fourth Estate: Press Framing of Presidential Wives. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press. 2008.
McCarthy, Tom. "Ann Romney's Campaign Role Gets Muddled as Election Creeps to an End." The Guardian. N.p., 19 Sept. 2012. Web. 26 Nov. 2012. .
Plante, Bill. "Michelle Obama: Witness to the Presidency." CBSNews. CBS Interactive, 4 Sept. 2012. Web. 27 Nov. 2012. .
The candidates' wives and families played an important role in this election. I would say that this time around they are equally as important as before, if not more important. For the Romney camp, Ann had the very difficult task of Humanizing Mitt. As the deputy campaign manager Katie Packer Gage said in an article on Politico before the GOP Convention “She will step back from her stump speech and outline the tenets of Mitt Romney's life...It will be a bigger, broader speech that will go back to Mitt's earlier life, the values his parents gave him, his life as a successful businessman, as head of the Olympics, as governor, as a father and husband.” This was the speech that Ann ended up giving, and it was in an attempt to make Romney more likeable.
ReplyDeleteObama on the other hand did not have as much of a likability problem, and so the role his wife played was largely changed this year. She attempted to restore faith in her husband during her DNC speech and during other meetings with the media. In a CBS article titled: “Michelle Obama: President is not going to lose” Scott Pelley interviewed Michelle and discussed her feelings on the election a few days after the DNC. She said: “What I have seen in him and I've been so impressed is how he is able to handle very high-pressured situations with a level of calm, consistency, and -- and wisdom. You know, so he doesn't allow his immediate emotions to carry the day. And he -- he keeps me focused. Because whenever I get tired or frustrated, he's usually the one who, as I said in my speech, reminds me that this is a long game. And that patience and sort of steadfast focus really wins the day.” This type of sentiment is the type Michelle carried throughout the campaign, in an attempt to restore confidence and reminds everyone how good of a leader he is behind closed doors.
Political pundits played a similar role as they always have in this election, working to put confidence into people that their candidate would win. However, with Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight blog we see that Punditry can end up just making the pundit and the network they were on look like a fool when people with scientific data show up. As Forbes reported in their article “Nate Silver and the Rise of Political Data Science” throughout the election Silver received criticism from many media sources and many pundits but his data ended up being remarkably close to the actual election outcomes, with everything down to even Florida being predicted as a virtual tie with Obama barely scraping out a win. And while polls help to create an idea of who is ahead in the election, they vary day to day and Nate Silver's analysis proved to be a truly useful tool of gauging public opinion by analyzing multiple polls. As Nate Silver said in a blog post after the election was already over “In my view, there will always be an important place for high-quality telephone polls, such as those conducted by The New York Times and other major news organizations, which make an effort to reach as representative a sample of voters as possible and which place calls to cellphones.” Silver also noted that internet polls are on the rise and may be more important in coming elections.
I think that pundits play a major role, but I would not say that it is always a good role as far as the candidates are concerned and as far as voters are concerned. Pundits can be very misleading and can likely hurt a candidate's campaign as they lie about the actual situation of an election. Slate.com had a pundit scorecard which showed a dart board with pundit's predications as darts. This showed that most republican pundits were off, with many favoring Romney for the presidency, and with many of the democratic pundits being closer, with only Jim Cramer being very far off, predicting Obama would get 440 electoral votes. This is not good for voters because in many cases the pundits are not relying on data, or are being selective in their data analysis. The only people who predicted the election exactly were Nate Silver, Chrish Lehane (A Democratic Advisor) and Josh Putnam from Davidson College.
DeleteWorks Cited
"Michelle Obama: President Is Not Going to Lose." CBS News. CBS Interactive, 6 Sept. 2012. Web. .
Romano, Lois. "Ann Romney's RNC Task: Humanize Mitt." Politico. N.p., 28 Aug. 2012. Web. .
Silver, Nate. "Which Polls Fared Best (and Worst) in the 2012 Presidential Race." Web log post. FiveThirtyEight. New York Times, 10 Nov. 2012. Web. .
Stern, Mark J., Chris Kirk, and Andrew Morgan. "Slate's Pundit Scorecard." Slate. Washington Post, 7 Nov. 2012. Web. .
Wadhwa, Tarun. "Nate Silver and the Rise of Political Data Science." Forbes. N.p., 7 Nov. 2012. Web. .
Matthew Harkins
ReplyDeleteThe role of first lady has existed since America’s first President. Historically the role presents itself as a strange one. “The position of first lady is not outlined in the Constitution, yet it has been a part of the American presidency since inception. There are no set rules or guidelines, yet the first lady assumes important duties and faces high expectations. It lacks a clear job description, but being first lady is a matter of tradition probably more than any other U.S. institution.” (Burns) The role clearly has been ambiguous in the past as to what the actual responsibilities of the first lady is, but in this years presidential campaign, we can see how their role is one that presents opportunity for campaigns during elections.
As Burns mentions, “Standing between the first lady and the public is the ever-present press.” (Burns) Which is evident in today’s society, especially when examining this years campaign and their strategies to utilize the role of first lady, as well as the family. The candidates wives have a clear connection to the press, and in a political climate such as the presidential campaign, they have agenda’s essential to the campaign. An article in the New York Times by Christine Haughney it highlights, “As the candidates for president debate in the press over weighty topics like taxes and health care, their wives are waging their own campaigns in women’s and celebrity magazines to show voters their spouses’ softer sides.” (Haughney) The wives and families of the candidates are essential in maintaining the humanistic image of the husbands as candidates. We saw in this election Mitt Romney and the press’s coverage of his robot like image. An example of a candidate wife and their role with the press comes from the previously mentioned article, which explains about an issue in Women’s Day Magazine in which “Mrs. Romney describes the early days of dating Mitt Romney when he worked as a nighttime security guard at the Chrysler Corporation, and how he still writes her love notes, and brings her lilacs on Mother’s Day.” (Haughney) Clearly, this is a strategy to benefit her husband and his campaign, in attempts to shape his image into a more relatable figure.
Harkins Cont.
ReplyDeleteNot only did the wives and families play the role of connecting with the press to soften the tension and views on the candidates, but they also can be observed as being surrogates for the campaign. An article by Alex Bruns on PBS News Hour explains, “After a stampede of surrogates left President Obama's talking points tramples by the wayside over the past few weeks, the president turned to the one person he knew he could trust to deliver his message to voters in the battleground state of Virginia: his wife Michelle.” (Bruns) Michelle Obama has shown herself a valuable and respected voice. Her surrogacy both delivers an image of her husband that people feel connected to as well as effectively stay on point. “…where Bill Clinton, Larry Summers and Cory Booker disappointed, Michelle Obama succeeded, staying on message to deliver an eloquent endorsement of her husband's policies and re-emphasizing the campaign's forward leaning message of four years ago.” (Bruns) Clearly, the wives of the candidates are not merely symbols of tradition as in the origins of U.S. Political history, but now serve as strong and effective voices on behalf of not only themselves but also their husband candidates. In Romney’s case, his family acted as surrogates for him, traveling across the country campaigning for him.
The wives and families of the candidates undoubtedly served as effective surrogates for the campaign. From the wives’ reaching out to the media to soften the tension, or to speak on the stump as a surrogate, the use of them is extremely effective.
Works Cited
Bruns, Alex. "'First Surrogate' Michelle Obama Campaigns in Virginia." PBS. PBS, 07 June 2012. Web. 28 Nov. 2012. .
Burns, Lisa M. First Ladies and the Fourth Estate: Press Framing of Presidential Wives. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press. 2008.
Haughney, Christine. "Wives Take the Campaign to Newsstands." The New York Times. The New York Times, 08 Oct. 2012. Web. 28 Nov. 2012. .