Would you like some cheese with that wine?

According to most viewers of the Democratic debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama that took place in Pennsylvania last Tuesday, the spectacle represented a loss for the Obama camp. However, this does not mean that it was a victory for Clinton, whose own performance was a disservice to her political party as she took advantage of every opportunity to parrot right-wing attacks of Obama that could be repeated in the general election. Rather, it represented a tragedy for the American political system and a missed opportunity to use the debate medium appropriately, as a way to inform citizens about the candidates and their positions on pertinent issues.

With such a close Democratic race, composed of only two major candidates, neither one an incumbent, the current political atmosphere was certainly ripe for debate. Therefore, Barack's acceptance of the invitation to debate in Pennsylvania came as no surprise as he is an able debater who would likely suffer in the eyes of the public if he turned down such an invitation. However, it is difficult to believe that he had control of all the important variables in the debate situation, particularly the topics and moderators. Forty-five minutes had passed before the debate shifted from a barrage of relentless, shallow questions largely directed toward Obama, including "Why don't you wear an American flag lapel pin?" and "Does Reverend Wright love America as much as you do?" to considerably fairer questions that actually addressed policy issues relevant to the public. The inquiries made by moderators Charlie Gibson and George Stefanopoulous, press spokesperson under the Clinton administration, merely served to put Obama on the defensive and would have made right-wing political pundit Rush Limbaugh proud.

Obama later responded to the debate with an unspoken reference to rapper Jay Z's song, "Dirt off your Shoulder." "When you're running for the presidency, then you've got to expect it, and you know, you've just gotta kind of let it," he said, pretending to dust something off his shoulder. "That's what you gotta do." However, it didn't seem that Obama was expecting quite what was in store for him last Tuesday evening. He appeared completely unprepared for and irritated by the questions he received. The reason for Obama's apparent lack of preparation seems to be that he remains unwilling to stoop to the kind of negative, tit-for-tat, attack-style politics that has been a cornerstone of Clinton's campaign. The new uplifting brand of politics that Obama has the potential to create will be very positive for democracy as well as for the American political system if he wins the general election. However, he first must emerge relatively unscathed from the superficial, ruthless politics that traditionally have characterized elections in this country, at least in recent years. In order to do this, he cannot act dismissive toward the questions posed by ordinary voters, no matter how trivial he deems them because this attitude will jeopardize the very support that he needs to win the election. This attitude was also reinforced by a recent comment that Obama made about middle-class Americans at a private fund-raiser in California: “So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." Even if Obama did actually pull a Hillary Clinton in this instance and misspeak, making this statement unrepresentative of his true beliefs, it still leaves a bitter taste in the mouthes of the masses and works against his ultimate goal of becoming the 44th president of the United States. How can the American people accept a candidate for who he is if he doesn't reciprocate that acceptance? Although it doesn't seem that Obama's recent comments have affected his standings in the polls as of yet, perceived elitism has been a significant detriment to past campaigns such as the Gore and Dukakis campaigns. Obama, therefore, would do well to adjust his strategy if he becomes the Democratic candidate that must go up against McCain on the road to the White House as few people would argue that the real winner of Tuesday's debate was indeed John McCain.

Obama Drama

In a photograph that first surfaced on the Drudge Report on February 25, Barack Obama is shown dressed in the tribal robes and headdress of a Somali elder in Wajir, a majority ethnic Muslim region of Kenya. According to both the Drudge Report and the Obama campaign, the picture was sent to the website by Clinton's staff. Clinton and her campaign team have since denied any responsibility for circulating the e-mail. Regardless of whether or not Clinton and her campaign team had anything to do with this particular smear tactic, I think that it was very unethical for the Drudge Report to reproduce this picture without providing any background information for the image.

I find it very difficult to believe that the Drudge Report did not anticipate the anti-Obama backlash that this picture would produce by provoking readers to make a connection between Obama and Islam, a religion that has elicited powerful emotions in the wake of the September 11 attacks. By omitting background information elucidating the presidential candidate's choice of clothing, the journalists at the Drudge Report misled their readership into believing that Obama's clothing was an expression of his personal faith. The fact that Obama has had to defend himself repeatedly against false claims made by right-wing bloggers that he is Muslim and attended a madrassa, or religious school, makes this omission particularly irresponsible.

Although photographs have been taken of George W. Bush and Bill and Hillary Clinton donning the traditional garb of civilizations that they have visited as a token of respect, there was little risk of audiences drawing false conclusions from these images. In the case of Obama, journalists should have taken the necessary measures to keep their readers fully informed. According to the Code of Ethics subscribed to by the Society of Professional Journalists, journalists have a responsibility to provide a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. By not providing readers with the full story surrounding the picture, the Drudge Report deflected the focus from Obama's diplomatic efforts onto false claims about the candidate's identity and personal life and violated the journalistic standards of accuracy and balance in the process.

Over the past week, Barrack Obama has been confronted with a flurry of negative attention from both the media and the public that has been unprecedented up in this presidential race. The harsh criticism arose from some controversial and racially inflammatory remarks made by Obama's long-time pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The imbalance in the media's coverage of the two contenders for the Democratic nomination consistently has been in Obama's favor, as Clinton noted in a recent Saturday Night Live skit when she jokingly suggested that the media should ask Obama if he's comfortable and whether he would like a pillow. Although most media outlets have fielded criticism for their nearly unwavering support of Obama up until this point, SNL faces a different charge. The combination of Hillary's recent appearance on the program and Tina Fey's skit "Bitch is the New Black" have fueled criticism that SNL is supportive of Clinton's candidacy. In "Bitch is the New Black," Fey, a white woman, transforms "bitch" from a negative stereotype into a positive quality by asserting that bitches get things done. As a self-proclaimed bitch, she lends the skit an air of authority and credibility. The next week, SNL presented a skit in which former cast member, Tracy Morgan, a black man, defends Obama from accusations that he entertains racist sentiments just because of his associations with Rev. Wright. Morgan compares his frequenting of strip clubs as an example of how one should not be judged on the basis of what one's associates do. Seemingly to balance the coverage of the Democratic candidates, Morgan makes a parallel claim that an aspect of Obama's identity, his blackness, will allow him to get things done. Morgan's blackness lends the same impression of credibility to the "Black is the New President" skit that Fey's whiteness and bitchiness gives to "Bitch is the New Black." "Black is the New President" may appear to be supportive of Obama, but upon closer examination, it is just as pro-Hillary as "Bitch is the New Black."

Fey uses the positive side of a traditionally negative stereotype that has surrounded Clinton from the outset of her campaign to illustrate that she will be able to get things done in her presidency. In contrast, Morgan takes an undeniable fact, that Obama is black, and uses a negative stereotype typically associated with that characteristic, that black people, especially black men from large cities such as Chicago, are gangsters to prove the point that Obama will also get things done. "Black is the New President" reinforces stereotypes that Clinton has used throughout her campaign to attack Obama and in this way, reveals SNL's support for the Clinton campaign.

The tables have turned when it comes to media scrutiny of the candidates with Obama receiving much more negative publicity for his association with Rev. Wright, a person whom he has no control over, than Clinton is receiving for the racist remark made by a former member of her finance committee, Geraldine Ferraro, that Obama would not be in the position that he is in if he were not black, at a time when Clinton was responsible for her as her employer.

Race may have replaced gender as the primary preoccupation of the presidential race, but mutual racism is not just prevalent on the national level. I have seen it manifested right here on our own campus in the wake of Eve Carson's death. Black students have been scapegoated as Eve's murderers were both black men while many black members of the community have resented the amount of media coverage that Eve's death has received and have attributed it solely to the fact that she was a pretty white female.

Unfortunately, unless Americans can progress beyond reducing one another to either black or white and instead view each other simply as people working collectively toward a common solution to today's most pressing problems, like poverty, flawed healthcare and education systems, and climate change, the issues that the 2008 presidential election should be about, the truest part of Tracy Morgan's "Black is the New President" dialog will remain his theory, "We are a racist country. The end."

N.C. Senator Richard Burr's early support for John McCain has led some to speculate initially whether Burr is vying for the Vice Presidential spot on the Republican ticket. Burr has since made clear that he prefers to show his support from the sidelines, but the question remains: Would the inclusion of Burr on the Republican ticket as the VP candidate amplify support for McCain among Republican voters in the South and if so, would this improve his chances of winning the general election?

First, McCain has been criticized for not being conservative enough. Ann Coulter has even said that she would vote for Hillary over McCain as she is more conservative than the Republican candidate. McCain will certainly need to a way to appeal to the far right vote, particularly the Evangelical vote and Burr's Southern background could be a powerful weapon in McCain's arsenal. There is something about a Southern drawl that just makes people seem more conservative and consequently more religious, even if they are far from it and this perception is magnified on the national scale among people who have never been directly exposed to Southern culture and therefore, necessarily base their perception on information derived from the media.

The biggest drawback to choosing Burr as the GOP VEEP candidate is his relative obscurity on the national scale. Although both of the Democratic candidates come from legislative backgrounds, governors have somewhat of an advantage over senators when it comes to visibility. The residents of most states have much more exposure to their governor than they have to their senators as senators operate on a national level whereas the governor is involved with state affairs, which touches people more directly. In addition, there are two senators compared to a single governor. Finally, governors have experience within the executive branch while senators' experience lies in the legislative aspects of government.

If Senator Burr were to 'audition' for the VP spot, his acceptance by Bible Belt voters, the segment of the Republican party that McCain could use the most help with, remains will depend on how he chooses to portray himself, or shape his image, on a national level. The good news is that Burr has flexibility in his image creation since he is not very well known outside of North Carolina. The rise of Barrack Obama provides an excellent example of this strategy as he took advantage of his relative obscurity outside of Illinois to package himself as a Washington outsider and the voice of change in government. In the end, Burr may not bring enough to the table to justify his nomination as the VP candidate. As a highly conservative governor from the South, he might well be a better choice for the VP candidate if McCain does win the Republican nomination.