The Political Apathy of the American Public: Who Is To Blame?

For the past few weeks, I have reported and commented on current political trends influencing the upcoming presidential elections. As a student majoring in political science, the politics behind campaigns are both interesting and important to me. Yet, as an American citizen, I am also aware that I am among a minority –in my generation especially– that pays attention to and reads about the future of government. That is why this week I have chosen to once again explore the blogosphere in an attempt to understand what (if anything) can be attributed to the seemingly growing political apathy of today. The first blog I found, titled “What a Shock – Liberal Bias in the Media,” is written by Captain’s Quarters’ Edward Morrissey. His blog discusses a joint study, published by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard’s Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy, which reports that the majority of presidential campaign coverage favors the Democratic Party (see chart to the right for more analysis). The second, written by Joel S. Hirschhorn on Populist America, offers an analysis of the media, its relationship with today’s U.S. government, and its negative impact on democracy. While each blog addresses the image of the American political system as a growing problem for the electorate (exemplified in the controversial propaganda shown below), their differing analyses have further persuaded me that a number of reasons exist as to why democracy has taken a back seat in the minds of so many. Like before, I offer my thoughts on their posts below, as well as directly on the authors’ respective blogs. Yet, in my quest for answers, I am instead more perplexed: the future of American democracy is still a daunting mystery.

“What A Shock -- Liberal Bias In The Media”
Comment:
Your blog, as well as the comments it has inspired below, provides an interesting analysis of the biased nature of today’s media coverage. I agree the report’s claim that the media’s inability to represent the Republican and Democratic parties equally “seems very strange.” The interesting point, in which you address, is that “of the two primary races, the GOP’s has the most interesting story lines;” while Hillary Clinton has established herself a clear front-runner for the Democratic Party, there is much mystery surrounding the GOP race. It seems unlikely that with so many questions left unanswered for the GOP, the media would focus more on the Democratic candidates. Further, the report’s statement that when Republican’s are portrayed, they are discussed more negatively than not, seems proof the media agrees that the GOP has more interesting “hooks” to offer (Giuliani’s divorces and Thompson’s questionable donors are just two examples). Yet, I would argue that the Democrats have an equal amount of “hooks” to be analyzed as well. Hillary Clinton’s marital scandal, as well as Obama’s inability to maintain a significant lead in terms of money and public opinion, have both been overanalyzed and critiqued on a daily basis. The fact that the media is biased is nothing new; the report discusses what many, including several bloggers who have written before me, already believe. Instead of highlighting the obvious, the media –and those who choose to critique it– should seek to improve it. Rather than focusing on personal history, or even a candidate’s ability to raise finances, the media should look at what each candidate has to offer in terms of political leadership. Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, illustrates this need when he questions whether the public is interested in the media’s focus on tactics and “insider stories that don't affect readers, viewers and listeners.” Record low voter turnout illustrates that many are discouraged from participating in politics and the media’s manipulation of campaign news only further persuades this apathetic mindset. The Harvard report acts as another media production in solidifying an already known belief.

“Voting As Political Narcotic”
Comment:
Thank you for commenting on a relevant problem facing democracy; your belief that the American political system is no longer democratic, but instead “rotten to the core,” illustrates that the election process is in desperate need of reform. I am particularly interested, however, in your thoughts on the voting process. Your belief that “most voters enable [America’s political system] without benefiting from it” offers significant truth, but perhaps a different solution is needed than the “boycott of voting” in which you propose. While there are a number of factors that effect voter turnout, many of which you discuss (i.e. the dishonesty of those in power and the inability of the people to influence change), I only partially agree that voting sustains a “fake democracy more than any other citizen action.” Rather, I think the real problem is the method in which voting is approached by society. Voters are either completely uninformed about their candidates’ real values or are unconsciously influenced by the media. Opinions of candidates are often based on “superficial differences” rather than relevant points of disparity. Improvement in campaign coverage may lead to more meaningful voting behavior; if the American people demand accurate political news by drawing attention to the networks that deny this, change is possible. Second, many voters that do pay attention to campaigns are convinced their vote has no sway in creating reform. Instead of participating in elections, they choose to steer clear of politics altogether, feeling disgusted or (more dangerously) apathetic towards government. However, the lack of faith in the American political system and the power of the vote identify a need for change greater than a call for a mass of “nonvoters;” today’s consistently low voter turnout proves that inaction as a means of defiance is not challenging the current form of government. Instead, voters should utilize the participatory rights guaranteed under the law and take responsibility in seeking political truth. By actively challenging the status quo and highlighting the need for change, voters can encourage reform literally by voting. Starting from within the smaller community and working outward, pushing the public to be more active in demanding election reform will wake up those currently in power and teach the government (as well as the people!) that voting is not a political narcotic.

Elections in Argentina: Both a Prediction and Lesson for the United States

This weekend, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner (shown below) became Argentina’s first elected female president, a defining moment in political history praised by many in the country as a signal of its progression towards gender equality. With the U.S. elections less than a year away, Fernandez’ success in Argentina has encouraged the media to compare her campaign strategy with that of the first female U.S. presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton. Both are seen as strong, independent leaders in a world mostly dominated by men; in their political and social backgrounds, moreover, there are a plethora of similarities that seem to outweigh their differences. Yet, while a comparison of the two may be interesting, the presidential election in Argentina should be viewed more as a lesson rather than an inspiration: voters should pay more attention to the issues that the candidates represent rather than their gender and personal background.

Perhaps the most significant similarity between Fernandez and Clinton is that both of their husbands are former presidents who were very influential while in office. In 2001, Fernandez’s husband Nestor Kirchner shepherded Argentina through a major economic crisis. Argentine political consultant Sergio Berensztein states, “She [Fernandez] comes to power thanks to her husband's time in office, which saw a return to economic growth, higher employment, and a recovery of presidential authority.” Bill Clinton’s political fame, both presently and while in office, has also influenced many voters’ opinions of presidential candidate and wife, Hillary Clinton. Ironically, the Lewinsky scandal notwithstanding, Bill Clinton had one of the highest public approval ratings of any president in office since WWII and has a current approval rating of 66 percent. Despite predictions that her husband’s risqué behavior would negatively influence Hillary’s run for office, she has gone on to become the Democratic frontrunner. However, for Senator Clinton, this optimistic turn of events may raise false hopes. The past has not yet harmed her, but the 2008 elections are just beginning; skeletons in the family closet have the potential to negatively impact even the strongest candidate’s image.

While their marriages provide an interesting political dynamic, Fernandez’ and Clinton’s family ties both help and hinder their respective political images. For Fernandez, her husband’s success undoubtedly helped her be the dominant candidate in pre-election polls: Voice of America’s Michael Bowman reports Fernandez as “nearly 30 points over her nearest rival in a field of more than a dozen presidential contenders.” However, she was criticized by the media for not publicly stating her own economic and social plans for Argentina’s future. She was elected to office despite this criticism, perhaps because she promised the continuation of her husband’s economic policies. This trend is not unique to Fernandez, as politicians often position their campaigns in line with a successful predecessor, but with her win, the issue Argentines face today is: was Fernandez elected because of her husband and will she be a successful president in her own right?

A similar question can be asked of Hillary Clinton. As Democratic frontrunner by a considerable margin, Clinton experiences the same advantages as Fernandez did in the early stages of elections. If what happened in Argentina is any prediction of America’s future, Clinton may well be on her way to becoming the first female president in the United States. Many voters have admitted supporting her based upon the premise of bringing the ex-president back into the White House (stated simply in one recent Fox News interview, “Democrats adore Bill Clinton”). This begs the question: do the voters want Hillary, or do they want Bill? Further, Senator Clinton, like Fernandez, also faces allegations from the media that she attempts to over-manage her public persona. Clinton’s campaign team, nicknamed the “control freaks,” has been blamed for manipulating the politician’s image to the extent that many voters are unable to understand Clinton’s position on key issues (listen to an interesting report on Clinton’s media strategy here).

The bigger picture here is not that Fernandez’s election is a mistake. On the contrary, the growth of female political leadership is a healthy sign of progress towards worldwide gender equality. Clinton’s win would be a radical moment in American history that is long overdue. Both women’s history as first ladies provides them with unique political backgrounds that may be beneficial for them once elected into office. Nonetheless, nominations and elections should not be made solely on the basis of gender or family connection. The road to victory should be based only upon individual merit. Support for Clinton, like that for her competitors, should be predicated on her values and what she stands for. Failing that, Americans risk electing a president who is more image than substance.

A Frontloaded Primary: Where Has the Democracy Gone?

Last week, Iowa announced January 3rd as the new date for its Republican caucus, a strategic move forward that upholds the state’s traditional position as first in the nation in deciding the presidential nominee. New Hampshire–usually the first primary state nationwide–is debating a similar move forward although final changes have yet to be announced (for an updated primary schedule, click here). The scrambling of primary dates comes as a response to a unique trend in this year’s 2008 presidential elections: a number of states have moved their schedules forward–ahead of the original dates set by both Iowa and New Hampshire–in hopes of having a greater influence on the election’s outcome. As a result, the primary season is heavily frontloaded and a political war among states is creating as much or more media attention than the actual campaign. Candidates are focusing on manipulating their image to cater to the state they are addressing, political parties are trying to regain control over the primary schedule, and the race to be the nation’s leader is turning into a game of survival-of-the-fittest. Frontloading may indeed bring more attention to certain states, but is not an effective way to elect the leader of the free world. In fact, it may even impact the democratic process.

A move forward in the primary schedule leads to more state-specific attention from both the candidates and the media. For example, Michigan (a state characterized by its industrialized labor force, high unemployment and a powerful auto industry) currently faces a complicated union strike, and is struggling with state budget reform. By moving the primary from its customary February position to January 15th, Governor Jennifer Granholm put Michigan’s social issues in the national spotlight. Her argument, like that of all states seeking to follow in Michigan’s footsteps, is somewhat valid. These states are geographically larger, more populated, and more diverse than both Iowa and New Hampshire. But Carol Hunger, a reporter from the Des Moines Register disagrees (and for obvious reason): “For one thing, Iowa is changing. Like many states, it has a growing Hispanic population. It's not as homogeneous as it once was. But I think the most important thing is, is a defense of retail politics wherever you start it. Here in Iowa, candidates get out and really meet the people. They're in cafes; they're in libraries; they're at the fairgrounds in each county. Many of the candidates have appeared in all 99 counties in Iowa. It gives candidates that might be considered a long shot a chance to make a name for themselves." Her argument may be enlarged upon: candidates who do poorly in the early primaries are soon weeded out, and may therefore not even end up on the ballot in the later primaries. This means that voters may lose the chance to choose from all the candidates.

Another concern of frontloading is that the presidential candidates are being forced to deal with the challenges that arise from an intense primary schedule. It is increasingly harder for candidates to make an impact in what are considered the “key states,” now larger in number than in previous elections. If candidates spend too much time in one state, they risk compromising their image in another. In prior elections, when primaries were spread out over a period of three to four months, candidates were able to reestablish their finances between primaries; now, with a heavy frontloaded schedule, the election process will most likely take place in four to five week intervals. Because winning in the first few states is crucial, candidates are forced to move quickly from one state to another. Thus, the increase in competition for money and media time has led to greater political warfare between parties and candidates alike.

A frontloaded primary season gives a greater number of states an equal chance to influence the election, a seemingly more democratic approach. However, media attention is not so much focused on the issues at hand, but on which candidate will survive this unique battleground financially and which campaign team is tough enough to come out alive. The Republican and Democratic National Parties, moreover, are only aggravating this debate. With little influence on voter choice in the primary elections, they are scheming to punish states which have moved ahead of their nationally assigned schedule, or to at least nullify the impact. For example, the DNC has requested that all candidates take their names off the primary ballots in Michigan. And, surprisingly, four have agreed (including Democratic front-runners Obama and Edwards, featured above). Ultimately, the primary season may come down to a question of whom to alienate, because no matter what the outcome, one party or another will be unhappy. How is this democratic?

Obviously the current nomination procedure trivializes the influence of states with late primaries. The election of the president should be a democratic process, but only on paper do we see a primary system set up to allow that. By providing citizens the ability to vote for their choice of presidential nominee (either through a caucus, convention, or primary election), the nation systematically allows for equal representation. Unfortunately, politics is negatively influencing democracy. When the media focus on campaign strategies rather than relevant social issues, and in turn, candidates focus on money rather than their campaigns, the end result is a dysfunctional election process. Additionally, frontloading does not necessarily deliver as promised–look at Michigan’s loss of key candidates on their Democratic primary ballot. The only answer may be reform. Why not develop a primary schedule whereby states rotate in and out of the starting spot? It is an issue worthy of our attention; some sort of change is necessary in order to ensure a more democratic approach to choosing a president. Unfortunately, any change may have to wait for 2012. For this presidential campaign, it is all money and politics. Where is the campaign for substance?

The Role of the Front-Runner: An Advantageous Position with Strings Attached

This past week, just three months before the first presidential primary elections in Iowa and New Hampshire, the ABC News-Washington Post national candidate ratings poll was released. This poll is unique in that it receives significant media coverage and has been used as evidence in establishing each party’s “front-runner candidate,” a seemingly enviable position. Senator Hillary Clinton was the front-running Democrat with her ratings jumping to 53 percent, 33 points ahead of her closest competitor, Senator Barack Obama. On the Republican side, Rudy Giuliani became the front-runner with a 34 percent lead over other Republican candidates (see the chart on the right for the top four presidential candidates' ratings in each party). Being the front-runner poses an interesting study: it assures considerable exposure and may lead to a future victory, but the strings attached can potentially threaten even the most successful campaigns.

How do Giuliani and Clinton compare? First, among their respective parties, each has done the best job of persuading voters of their “electability”; this means that voters believe these candidates offer the best chance of winning the White House in 2008. On the Democratic side, 61 percent of those polled believe Clinton will be the strongest Democratic leader, and 50 percent say she best reflects the values of the Democratic Party. These ratings are not as significant for Giuliani; only 23 percent of Republican voters believe that he best reflects the party’s values. Second, a different (and perhaps more telling) comparison involves each candidate’s fundraising report. Mary Jacoby of the Wall Street Journal claims that “the ability to raise lots of cash is one traditional measure of a candidate’s strength,” and a look at both candidates’ numbers seems to prove this. Indeed, both Giuliani and Clinton are the leaders in raising money for their campaigns in the months July through September. Clinton, however, has a big edge here: she has raised over $27 million which, as Politico reports, is a big increase from even the 2000 election campaign where “Sen. John F. Kerry raised a total of $17 million over nine months at the same point in 2003.” Giuliani, in comparison, is just above the $11 million mark. This gap gives the Democrats a significant financial advantage and is probably one reason why Clinton is doing better than Giuliani in opinion polls.

With their “front-runner” status, Giuliani and Clinton now face very different challenges than the other presidential candidates. First off, they have the burden of being constantly in the spotlight as a target for criticism. John Edwards and Barack Obama, for example, have repeatedly condemned Clinton’s views on the Iraq war and health care reform, whereas Giuliani has been increasingly riled by other Republican candidates for his socially liberal views. This comes as a result of the trailing candidates’ need to differentiate themselves from the front-runners in each party, especially in key states like Iowa and New Hampshire, where generating greater voter support and winning in the “make it or break it” primaries are crucial in the race for a party nomination.

This role is especially noteworthy for Clinton because as the established front-runner of the party that is collectively ahead in polls, she has become a major target of Republican slings and arrows. In a recent article on Politico.com, journalist Mike Allen observed that “the leading Republicans are running as if Clinton were their opponent,” invoking her in hopes of gaining Republican support. One strategy, used by Mitt Romney, is to mock her in a stand-up comedic manner: at a recent campaign event Romney began with, “Did you hear what Hillary Clinton said about the economy, by the way?” and concluded with the punch line, “So for her, it’s out with Adam Smith and in with Karl Marx!” Although light-hearted in nature, Romney’s approach illustrates a broader marketing drive that has been employed by other GOP candidates this season as well: he is advocating the GOP in its entirety as well as attempting to distinguish himself from other Republican contenders. This may be a successful—and necessary—tactic for a party that is currently behind in ratings and heavily criticized by both the media and general public. By focusing on Clinton, Republican candidates seeking to emphasize their own “electability factor” are making the case “that they are not afraid to take on Clinton,” or any Democrat, as an opponent.

This is especially necessary for Giuliani since improving his “electability factor” is just one of the struggles he faces as the GOP’s front-runner. Having to speak on behalf of his party, Giuliani has had to explain the Republican candidates’ inability to compete with the Democrats in terms of financing and popularity. In an interview with Politico.com, he admitted that the Democrats are a concern of his and that the Republican Party will have to increase fundraising efforts in the future. As far as his own campaign is concerned, he said, “It’s my intention not to attack any other Republicans….The whole focus of my campaign is ‘I’m going to run against a Democrat.’”

Yet, for the front-runners, these seemingly difficult tasks may be trivial compared to the potential benefits that come hand in hand with their new-found status. Every candidate since 1980 who has been ahead in the previous year’s polls has gone on to win his party’s nomination. This may prove to be just another misleading statistic, but it is nonetheless a position every candidate would like to find himself (or herself) in. With the media already setting up a Giuliani-Clinton dynamic, the possibility of their nominations seems almost inevitable. On the other hand, the old adage “a day is a lifetime in politics” should not be forgotten—the Conventions are more than a few lifetimes away.

The Republican Divide: To Whom do Candidates Turn?

Recently, there has been much debate as to who will win the Republican vote. The party’s lost control of Congress in last year’s midterm election and offensive sex scandals by two well-known Republican Senators, has offended many Republican voters and left the current GOP presidential candidates the difficult task of convincing their own partisan voters to support their campaign. Specifically, the party is losing support from arguably its strongest voting bloc: the conservative, Christian right. Comprising roughly thirty-one percent of Republican voters, they play a significant role in determining the next Republican candidate.

The problem lies in the social conservatives’ debate as to which presidential candidate to support. First, although leading the Republican Party in nationwide polls (reported by The Gallup Organization), Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s more socially liberal position has angered many religious right voters (a picture of Giuliani campaigning in Washington can be seen on the right). This has resulted in negative attacks in the media regarding his campaign: a prominent group of evangelical leaders in Salt Lake City recently threatened to consider supporting a third-party candidate for president if a pro-choice nominee like Rudy Giuliani wins the Republican nomination. While this statement may be a plea for other Republican candidates to boost their conservative campaigns, it is nonetheless an illustration of the anger in which many Republicans have found themselves with today’s election.

Further, presidential candidate Fred Thompson (on left) of Tennessee is not winning conservative voters like expected. His failure to “rally support,” however, may to some extent be attributed to negative media as well. Prominent evangelical leader James C. Dobson spoke out against him, saying that Thompson could not "speak his way out of a paper bag" and that “he has no passion, no zeal, and no apparent 'want to'" (as reported in the Los Angeles Times). While it is no surprise that a celebrity is influencing a candidate’s campaign through his voice in the media (especially in the 2008 elections), the Republican Party candidates are suffering tremendously because of it.

Although Thompson and Giuliani represent just two key candidates disappointing the religious right, they illustrate the common trend that is influencing Republican voters’ mindset. John McCain’s speech on preferring a Christian president has been seen as more of a controversy than a campaign strategy, and the candidate Mitt Romney’s religious affiliation has unfortunately influenced his campaign as well. As a result of the extensive religious media attention, Republican candidates are being forced to seek new strategies in obtaining votes. In Iowa, for example, where religious conservatives are a large voting bloc for the GOP, Romney has increased television advertising (see a shot of his TV advertisement below), which the Los Angeles Times reports have “vaulted him to the front-runner's spot in polls there." Yet, in other, more moderate states, Romney has downplayed this same conservative campaign in favor of a more moderate attitude on social issues. This strategy, while popular among all presidential candidates, only further confuses (and divides) the partisan vote.

With the early primaries just a few months away, the need for a strong Republican leader is crucial. Especially with Democratic candidates constantly in the spotlight, Republicans must find a new way to revitalize partisan attention and appreciation. Whether turning inward to boost conservative votes or branching outward to independent voters, one thing is clear: the Republican candidates’ role in the media is more important today than ever before.

A Politician’s Presence Online: Does it Legitimize or Jeopardize their Campaign?

Having only recently entered the blogosphere, I was somewhat surprised at the number of blogs that exist solely to analyze political events and politicians. Accordingly, in my previous post I mentioned the potential for the internet to sway the next election and the fact that online advertising is likely to have both a positive and negative influence on a candidate’s campaign. Unfortunately, the true effectiveness of an online presence for a presidential candidate both in terms of finance and awareness is unknown (see below image of Mitt Romney's Facebook profile). However, the diverse and ambiguous nature of internet sources has prompted me to compare its power to that of traditional media, and I have therefore decided this week to explore the blogosphere to further understand what bloggers feel about presidential candidates’ relationship with the internet. The first post I found, “Is the Next President on YOUR ‘Friends’ List,” is published by AOL Consumer Advisor and host of DIY Network's Tech Out My House, Regina Lewis. Her entry discusses potential motives for candidates who establish online identities and the growing importance of marketing in this manner (sample "Friends" list on left). The second, found on Beltway Blogroll by the editor of National Journal’s Technology Daily K. Daniel Glover, analyzes a new trend that has emerged from politically-inspired blogs: nutpicking. Nutpicking is the practice of culling negative visitor comments from blogs and using them as evidence in “attack ads” against a specific candidate, party or blog. I have offered my comments on their posts below as well as directly on the authors’ respective blogs.

“Is the Next President on YOUR ‘Friends’ List?”
Comment:
First, I want to thank you for your insight into the online community’s influence over presidential candidates and their campaigns; you give credit to many of the benefits that having an online presence can offer for influencing presidential elections. I agree that having an online identity, a profile on Facebook for example, allows candidates to establish relationships with people who are not particularly interested in politics. This is the result of their interactive ability that provides a unique medium for candidates to reach out to a younger audience. As a university student, however, I would be interested in knowing how effective Facebook and Myspace profiles are in communicating candidates’ positions. Because the internet is cluttered with ads and spam, and because computer-savvy users can create phony “replica” sites, it is not easy for Facebook users to know which sites are valid and which should be avoided. When we learn about “new friends” in these interactive communities, our generation is rightfully suspicious, and we have learned to question the identity and authority of everything we see, especially online. Additionally, while I agree that the internet “enables large numbers of small donations from everyday people,” I would like to know how many of those donations are actually from new as opposed to regular campaign donors. Especially when trying to reach a younger crowd, the possibility of a Facebook user spending money while browsing through their “new friends” does not seem very promising. The internet is certainly changing the marketing of politics, but it is not going to usurp the role of television anytime soon. Campaigns will simply have to add it into their strategy and learn how to exploit it better.

“‘Nutpicking’ The Comments on Liberal Blogs”
Comment:
Your opinions on nutpicking are both informative and interesting. I agree when you argue that attacking bloggers is a “mistake for politicians” because it ruins their credibility, but also because it puts the bloggers in the limelight, and may draw unwanted attention to the very blog that is being denounced. However, while it is possible that few voters will realize the attack ads are “silly” for being sourced to blogs rather than “authoritative sources,” it may be a dangerous assumption to assume all voters will not be swayed by this form of marketing. Candidates are seeking approval from a vast audience, and since attack ads are shown on other forms of media rather than the internet, those viewers that are not as computer-intelligent as bloggers (or other frequent internet users) may not consider the amount of credibility that should be given–or not given–to blogs. Since the internet does give candidates the potential to raise money and support, it would be unwise for politicians to ignore the blogosphere. Harsh criticism from the public is nothing new; it seems childish for candidates to nutpick as a strategy of opposing–and drawing attention to–the enemy. Understanding that blogs can help and hinder a candidate’s campaign, why not approach the blogosphere with a “can’t beat them, join them” strategy? Candidates may create better publicity by integrating the blogosphere into their campaign rather than using it as a weapon against opposing parties. That way, the blogosphere’s nature of being a “free exchange of ideas” is maintained. Senator Barack Obama is a good example: recently reaching out to bloggers through his own blog, Obama created a poll specifically designed to establish a healthy interaction with bloggers and promote positive awareness in the media.

Celebrity Endorsements: Their Influence on the Race for the Democratic Vote

As the 2008 presidential elections draw closer, the race for America’s vote has never been tighter. Tension between competing political parties is expected; however, this season is uniquely defined by even more intense debate among candidates within the same political party. The struggle to capture the American public has become increasingly difficult in a cluttered media environment. Technological advancements make traditional television advertisements easy to avoid and allow viewers who are more interested in popular culture to avoid political messages altogether. As a result, in competing for the public’s vote, candidates have to rely on other forms of marketing to establish their position. While celebrity endorsements of presidential candidates are not a new trend in campaign history, their role unfortunately seems to hold significant importance in influencing today’s public opinion and increasing voter turnout.

Recently, many Democratic candidates have augmented their presidential campaigns with celebrity endorsements. On September 8, talk-show host and media icon Oprah Winfrey held a fundraiser at her home in Montecito, California to endorse Senator Barack Obama (see in the image above). This event, which raised more than $3 million for Obama’s campaign, marks the first time Winfrey has publicly endorsed a politician. More significant than the financial revenue, however, is the partnership between celebrity and politician, which is likely to influence the rest of Obama’s campaign. He is now directly associated with Winfrey and has connection to her viewers as well. Other candidates competing for the same vote are forced to solicit their own endorsements so they can share in the reflected fame and notoriety of the endorser.

One such example is a response that came only six days after Obama’s fundraiser with Winfrey. His biggest rival, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, appeared in Los Angeles with basketball marvel "Magic" Johnson on September 14th (at a fundraiser in Beverly Hills, shown on the right). Although the former Lakers player is not equivalent to Winfrey in fame and fan support, political scientist Franklin D. Gilliam Jr. believes the endorsement shows Clinton’s ability to “compete in a legitimate way” with Obama. Both candidates are seeking to reach the same demographic – the black vote – and are associating themselves with celebrity African-Americans in hopes of achieving just that.

A positive result of swaying her viewers to vote for Obama is that Winfrey’s activism has the potential to increase voter turnout among America’s youth and minority population. In fact, in "On the Media" from New York Public Radio, USC History Professor Steve Ross stated if “Oprah can get even one percent of the national population to vote who did not vote before... that one percent can make all the difference in the world."

How does all this affect Americans' opinion of the two candidates? Campaigning on television reaches a vast audience of viewers. The “Oprah Winfrey” show alone attracts nearly eight and a half million people every weekday. Moreover, her ability to increase sales of products is legendary, to wit: Oprah’s book club selections become instant best sellers. This is a smart strategy for Obama because it is not hard to believe that if Winfrey can sell books, she can also sell a political candidate. By associating oneself with a celebrity, the politician can advertise him or herself in a less political environment and have the endorser speak on their behalf as well.

The role of celebrity endorsers in campaigns is not the sole reason for an increase in awareness among the general public, however. With internet usage and availability in virtually every home, presidential are now able to reach potential voters through diverse media. Barack and Clinton both have established websites (see Obama's blog on the left), MySpace and Facebook profiles, and YouTube videos defining their campaigns. These all play a part in influencing public opinion and identifying the candidates with an internet savvy generation.

Whether celebrity endorsements are successful in influencing a voter toward one politician over another, or if they simply establish a candidate’s presence in a cluttered and otherwise competitive entertainment medium, one thing is certain: celebrities are directly influencing the 2008 presidential campaign. The American public is more aware – and divided – in their opinion of presidential candidates today than in past elections.

The only question left to ask is whether or not voters will appreciate the celebrity endorsements. The possibility of a partnership backfiring cannot be overlooked. Will voters appreciate both Winfrey and Johnson’s opinion or will the endorsers' images discourage voters from siding with the candidates they prefer? Will this strengthen or divide the Democratic Party, and will these endorsements confuse or encourage the divided America to vote one way or another? Although definitive answers lie months ahead, and the real success of celebrity endorsements cannot be determined just yet, it is important that the American public is aware of the media’s powerful influence on the election process.