In 1917 the first women was elected to the US Congress. Her name was Jeanette Rankin, she was elected from the House of Representatives from Montana. This was amazing feat in itself because it was three years before women were granted the Constitutional right to vote, although women could vote in Montana as of 1914. Some say Rankin was a pioneer for women in politics and women in general. Since then there have been many women filling political roles all over the country. That said, the stereotypic “woman” still has not been completely washed away. Women in the political light are between a rock and a hard spot. They have to be strong and assertive so they do not seem like a wimpy girl that will cry at a drop of a hat. However, they can not be too strong because people will think they are cold and heartless. This is a hard situation to be in but you just have to do the best you can.

I think that over time the views will equal out and women will be viewed on the same level as men. I am sure this will take longer then most of us women would like but I think with every step that is taken, every new position that is held, it is one hurdle closer to equalization. I applaud women for taking chances and putting their selves out there for the entire gender.

The part of me that thinks he is an idiot and wont be taken seriously is wondering why any of this even came up? Yes, I understand that he and many others think the government is going down the crapper and we all need to be saved, but what is the point of putting himself out there. It is just too reminiscent of the Robin Williams movie Man of the Year. Other then getting press and for people to notice him, he has not talked about a reason or specific issues he has that has triggered him to run. Obviously he is not taking this seriously because he is only running in South Carolina, if he actually wanted to win he would run nationally. This all must just be a publicity stunt.

 The other part of me that thinks he has a chance of winning and people will support him, is scared. What if he does win in South Carolina, what will this say for politics as a whole? We have already had an actor for a president and now another, but do we need to add comedian to the list. Well, if that is not making our government laughable (no pun intended). This man makes a living making fun of the very government that he is trying to get his foot in the door of. As Blo-go would say, “What is he thinking?” I am not sure how well it would work for him to sit behind the desk in the Oval Office and make fun of himself.

I would have to guess that he is simply trying to prove a point with announcing that he is thinking about announcing  for running for president only in South Carolina. If he follows through with this stunt it will be interesting to see how he does. If he does poorly then the joke is on him, if he does well…then we might have a problem. This could open the door to many others that are, in my opinion, not qualified to be the President. Would I vote for Steven Colbert if I had the option? Absolutely NOT! But would it be entertaining? Of course, but that might be the very point. How stupid would that current government and candidates look if a comedian beat everyone else out? …yeah that’s the point. After all, that is all he does.

Wanna watch it?          http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=118625&title=colberts-big-announcement

How about read it?          http://www.news.com/8301-13577_3-9798943-36.html

Ahh, Hillary Clinton. We all know who she is from her husband, Bill. Some say that Bill made her who she is, but others say that she was the brains behind Bill when he was President, he was simply a face for the public…who knows?? There is much controversy over Hillary running, she is a woman you know! This is the first difference that I would like to touch on. Can a woman handle running the country? Of course, there is no reason why a woman does not have the ability to run the White House. The problem is that a woman has never done it before so there is doubt in peoples minds. Hillary trys to put a good image in peoples minds but that is hard to do when you have half the people telling you that you are too harsh and the other half that you are acting too girly. For this reason you end up with a vision of her in a power suit sitting on a large floral couch (not the best).

Then we have Barack Obama. The black guy right..no, he isnt black enough to be black. Barack is a young senator from good old Illinois that helped out the people of Chicago, YAY! The biggest issue with him is that he is African American. The white people, especially in the very conservative areas, dont think that a black man should be the President, but then you have some of the African American community that thinks if there is going to be a black President that he needs to be dark black, if you know what I am saying. Well, can a black man run the country? Again, of course, there is no reason why not. It is simply that he is different.

The main problem Hillary and Barack have with winning the election is not that they are not capable of doing the job but that they do not know how to market themselves to the people. As you know, if you dont feel like you can have a beer with the President then they cant be in office. I think some people would have a problem having a beer with the stiff woman and a young almost black man.

There is a poem that I like entitled Welcome Change. There is a section of the poem that I feel explains what citizens are feeling.

We fight change, because we fight the unknown,
We fight the unknown, because we are scared,
Scared of change, scared of the unknown.

This is what most of the people are feeling, they are scared of someone that is not your typical graying old white guy in office. It matters what they look like because that is what people know. If they know nothing else about a candidate, they will probably know what he or her looks like. Look the part of you wont get cast. Do I think either of them are going to elected?..personally, no. However, I could be very wrong, I have been before. I think they are just a small step in the process of change, put the different ones in the mix first, then get them elected.

 If you want to read the whole poem by Gina Whitacre called Welcome Change, go to the link.     http://ourfootprints2.wordpress.com/2007/07/06/poem-welcome-change/

Here is an example…

Toby Keith (a country music artist) released a song called Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue (The Angry American). Here is the chorus so you can get the feel.

          Hey Uncle Sam put your name at the top of his list,
        And the Statue of Liberty started shaking her fist.
        And the eagle will fly,
        And there’s gonna be Hell,
        When you hear Mother Freedom start ringing her bell!
        And it’ll feel like the whole wide world is raining down on you…
        Brought to you courtesy of the Red, White and Blue!

The song is pretty much saying put your camo on, get your gun, and lets kick some ass. Actually in the song he sings, ” ‘Cuz we’ll put a boot in your ass. It’s the American way.” The media freaked out! They report on how this is not a good way to look at America and putting you boot in someone’s ass is not the “American” way. Toby also got a lot of slack from fellow country singers. To name one, the Dixie Chicks. The lead singer publicly said Keith was ignorant.  This feud between them went on for sometime and the media covered it closely. If you want to read about it, go here http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/6-5-2003-41299.asp  The part of this controversy that bothered me the most is that the media and music industry missed the whole point. They were so concerned about the artists feuding that the song was not taken for its true value. He released the song to promote patriotism and to get the American people, not necessarily to support the war, but to support the soldiers that are dieing so that people can sit over here and fight about whether the conservatite Toby Keith or the liberal Dixie Chicks is right.

Later the Dixie Chicks release their own political song bashing Bush and government as a whole. Do you see the Dixie Chicks getting on a plan to Iraq to perform for the soldiers like so many others are, no. The Dixie Chicks, in my opinion, have the same problem that a lot of the American people do. They like to bitch and not do anything about it. Instead of doing something to support what they believe in they are complaining, except their complaining is public and costing thousands of dollars. Stop bitching and start a revolution! thats all I have to say about that.

So, to my point. Music artists and the media are essentially doing the same things, giving the people soft news or entertainment. Songs of the 60’s were sang to motivate people to stand up for what they believe in and do something, kind of motivational. Political songs today are not used for this, they are used to entertain not inform and motivate. It seems to me that music and media are both headed dont the same dark path.

 First, I will try to answer why there is more soft news then ever before. This has a lot to do with the viewers and what they want to see. If I remember correctly from a Political Psychology class that I took, Matthew Baum wrote on soft news bringing foreign policy to the public. In his writings he suggested that people look for soft news because they want to be entertained and not necessarily to be informed. Also, he said that the people who want to be entertained are not going to be the ones to actually seek the hard facts about politics. This is understandable, people come home from work or school and they want to sit down and just relax, most do not want to sit down, watch a show and think analytically about what they are watching. The networks are simply following what the public is wanting. Soft news draws much more viewers then serious news, so the networks deliver the entertainment that is wanted. You cant blame them this is a business, the more people watch, the better the chances are that they stay on the air.

Secondly, is this a good or bad thing? Well, I would have to stay both. I think the public getting there political news from late night comics is bad for the simple fact that the subjects joked about might not be a joking matter. The events talked about, or made fun of, are not always something that should be taken light heartedly. Political news is something that should be taken seriously because it effects everyone whether they think is does or not. However, I would have to say that it is a good thing because people are at least being informed in some manor about the events that are taking place. Like Baum said people want to be entertained while at the same time being informed.

So the real question…is soft news a friend or a foe? I would say Friend, a sometimes annoying friend that you just cant seem to get away from, but nevertheless a friend. And I think this friend is here for the long haul.