Since there's no extra time for writing, here's Sunday and yesterday's "official" program journal entry

Goals:

The Washington Center’s program is offering me a condensed glimpse of what I missed by majoring in something other than political science. For as long as I can remember, I’ve been fairly politically savvy. But I knew after high school that journalism was — at the time — the best major for me.

On that note, the DNC is my opportunity to set a list of extremely personal, career-oriented goals. As a senior, I’m approaching a cliché (but nevertheless terrifying) crossroads. By December or so, I have a host of decisions to make:

• Do I stick with the reporting career?
• Can I repress — do I WANT to repress — my strong political convictions enough to feel like I can honestly be a good journalist?
• Should I head to graduate school to delve into political science?
• Can I fuse a love of journalism with a passion for politics?
• Should I parlay the skills I’ve honed Missouri School of Journalism into a political career — writing speeches, working spin/pr for candidates, lobbying, engaging in punditry, etc.?

…the list goes on. My goal isn’t to hammer down concrete answers to these questions. I’m simply looking for a sense of direction. My goal is to, through my media fieldwork in a political vein, discover what makes me “tick” more: the spirit of politics and democracy, or journalism.

So, in short, my goals:

1) Through my media/political fieldwork, gain a better sense of vocation: politics, journalism, or both.
2) Through our group discussions and guest lecturers, decide if I find politics fascinating enough to pursue a graduate degree.
3) Schmooze, socialize and rub elbows to either a) gain me journalistic connections, or b) gain political connections for a post-graduate degree or career.
4) Meet Kathleen Sebelius, Larry King, Wolf Blitzer, or any of this year’s crew of folks who vied for the Democratic nomination.

I want to learn if my avid political blog consumption and rants about assorted candidates really render me the breed of political junkie that can survive among ambitious, D.C. politicians, lobbyists and reporters. I want to see if being in a veritable Disneyland for Huffington Post fans will help me decide where I’m going and what I’m doing for…well, for all I know, the rest of my life.



Monday, August 18, 2008

Reflection on the day’s activities — speakers and group discussion:

Before 10 a.m. today, I was worried about this entire experience. After all the harping on no alcohol and the hour-long icebreaker Sunday night, I suspected my parents and I just dropped $4,000+ on a program for amateurs and immature, spoiled college students. Would Missouri’s crew of students — a high-achieving, deep-thinking bunch — prove to be an anomaly…an isolated band of responsible, motivated convention-goers scattered among a bunch of kids who’re hell-bent on get trashed with big wigs at convention parties?

Fortunately, I was way too hasty to judge. Dr. Thomas Cronin quelled my fears within seconds of taking the podium. By the end of his speech, the fire was back. My God. I’m at the Democratic National Convention!

His “What ifs” ran a gambit of topics. What if…
• We had a national primary?
• Florida and Michigan hadn’t violated committee rules?
• Edwards’ affair came to light in January, forcing his campaign to end before the Iowa caucuses?
• Mitt Romney wasn’t a Mormon?
• Justice O’Connor voted for Gore over Bush, and the Gore/Lieberman team were winding down a successful eight years?
• Bloomberg and Paul ran as third-party candidates?
• Kathleen Sebelius, Claire McCaskill, Oprah, Caroline Kennedy, Ted Kennedy, etc., hadn’t endorsed Obama?
• The convention isn’t a success?
• McCain amps up national security-centric attacks on Obama?

Each question could merit pages of commentary, but for me, the real “whoa” moment was when Dr. Cronin posed this question:
What if John Kerry didn’t ask Barack Obama to do the keynote address at the 2004 DNC?

It’s this “What If?” question that ties, I think, rather neatly into the points Dr. Genovese later made about three of the flaws in the American campaign process — that it’s too long, too costly, and too media-driven. To me (an unabashed Obama supporter), Barack’s success thus far has grown from a soil of genuine political promise, media coverage weighing in his favor, and, frankly, luck.

Kerry undoubtedly picked Obama as a keynote speaker in Boston for a reason. Kerry saw had something special in this young guy — a fresh face who hadn’t even won his senate campaign. And Obama has proven he has genuine political talent. He’s a killer orator. He knows when to change his mind. He knows when — and how — to smooth over even the most seemingly insurmountable political speed bumps (e.g. Rev. Wright.)

But it would be foolish to claim that Barack Obama’s almost meteoric rise from relative political obscurity to the democratic candidacy hasn’t been largely fueled by a media and pop-culture blitz. In 2004, here was Obama: a young, eloquent black man with a message of change and, presumably , the chutzpah to back that message up. However, Obama was far from a front-runner when the campaign season started. He had his DNC keynote address, and as far as anyone on a national stage knew, that was about it.

Obama’s candidacy — tough I’m downright giddy about it — is a direct product of the three flaws in the campaign process Dr. Genovese discussed. And to answer Dr. Cronin’s Obama “what if”: If Kerry hadn’t tapped Obama for the keynote address in 2004, we’d be celebrating the Hillary Clinton or John Edwards candidacy right now.

Now noticed, Obama had a chance — because the campaign process is too long, expensive and media-centric. As primary season began, Obama was fresh, different, and from a news media standpoint, that’s downright sexy. In a world of 24-news cycles and perpetually updated political blogs, fresh blood revitalizes political coverage.

So Obama garnered more coverage than many of his rivals, and by the time the Iowa caucuses rolled around, he was a household name (though perhaps only among dyed-in-the-wool Democrats.) Thanks to political punditry, Obama was momentarily touted as the likely winner of the next contest in New Hampshire. He lost, but it didn’t matter. We media folks had a real horse race in our hands.

Because the primary season wore on so long, Obama had a chance even after the real front-runner — Clinton — claimed New Hampshire. Nearly every week, we had a new victory to tally in the Obama and/or Clinton columns. This was the race journalists fantasize about, offering something to fill those oh-so-daunting 24-hour news cycles. On and on the race dragged — but it was that length that gave Obama a fighting chance. Iowa (Illinois’ next door neighbor) truly got Obama noticed. He took advantage of what limited media exposure he could, fired up supporters at a grassroots level, and kick-started a brand new kind of campaign.

Had we had a national primary or an abbreviated campaign season, voters less familiar with this junior senator probably wouldn’t have given him the time of day, much less check his name on the ballot.

I’ve already explained why I think the length and media-centric nature of the campaign process played in favor of Obama. But there’s one more relationship I want to address, and it’s linked to the “sound byte of the day,” so I’ll segue.


Sound byte of the day: “Societal A.D.D.”

Yeah…I used my own sound byte — but only because Profs. Joliffe and Davidson suggested it!

Anyway, it ties in to a point I had trouble expressing in our group discussion. Yes, the campaign process is too media-driven and far too expensive, but Obama’s campaign beautifully took advantage of both these flaws in the system.

The nature of political coverage today really does render citizens passive. We sit and consume horse-race coverage instead of feeling like we have a personal stake in the political game. Instead of rolling over and playing dead, Obama fought voter complacency. With some of the best grassroots campaigning the Democratic party has ever seen (so far as I know), Obama not only energized his voting base, he raked in record-breaking funds for his campaign and consequently garnered still more political coverage.

Today’s news grows ever more geared toward quick consumption. Stories are broken into bite-sized pieces that news consumers can pluck for easy consumption. Lose interest? It’s okay. Click another link! Flip the channel! Watch entertainment news instead!

By engaging voters more directly (who hasn’t received umpteen e-mails from the Obama campaign?), Obama gave a society with an attention deficit something to do. Donate. Volunteer. Follow this campaign, because it’s yours. Obama raked in more and more donations, generating more and more bite-sized headlines, fueling his image as a strong candidate. Now, we’re here, celebrating his candidacy and approaching the next big “What if”…

What if America finally elects a president who isn’t an old, white guy?


Reflection re: Goals

So far, I haven’t done a ton toward my goals. However, my second goal (deciding if I find politics fascinating enough to pursue a graduate degree) is moving right along. I’m loving the politics already. So far, it looks like I’ll be applying to grad schools.