Final BBC analysis! :)

The British Broadcasting Company, or BBC is an interesting organization that had a unique perspective on the 2008 United States presidential election. Unlike many of the other news media outlets, the BBC seemed fair and balanced, almost to the point of laziness. In a country where news is told, then analyzed then used as premise to make predictions, having news told without the extra fluff seemed unnatural. To understand exactly the way in which the BBC provides unbiased news, one must understand the history of the corporation, its perspective on the United States and our government, and how that influences the issues the reporters cover.

History of the BBC

The BBC was started with four men in 1922 reading bulletins nightly, so as to not deter the sale of newspapers (BBC, 2008). It has since gained a broader audience and vehicles for communication as the largest news broadcasting company in the world (Sambrook, 2008). Understanding that currently not only the British go to them for news, they have adopted a broader worldview. Their news now must be newsworthy for the world, or presented in a manner that allows audiences to get the news that is most salient to them. Deputy Director of News, Mark Damazer (2008), says, “There is no one universal news agenda that applies to all. That is why we broadcast in many different styles and why a story given prominence in the UK may not even be mentioned by our international channels.”

Organizations that have a worldwide audience must have strong moral and guiding principles. However, one learns that values differ throughout the world. For example, Americans value choice and freedom; Australians also value the same but in a different way. For example, Australians must vote, and it is considered rude to ask to have your hamburger without tomato. In America, of course, it is your choice whether or not you vote, and it is the American way to have your burger ‘any way you want.’ The BBC recognizes this, and has worked to satisfy the needs and wants of those and many other cultures throughout the globe.

The BBC has a mission, vision and then list of values that guide the organization. The mission of the BBC is a simple one: to enrich people’s lives with programmes and services that inform, educate and entertain (BBC, 2008). Further, their vision is “to be the most creative organization in the world” (BBC, 2008). Finally, their values are listed below:

· Trust is the foundation of the BBC: we are independent, impartial and honest.

· Audiences are at the heart of everything we do.

· We take pride in delivering quality and value for money.

· Creativity is the lifeblood of our organization.

· We respect each other and celebrate our diversity so that everyone can give their best.

· We are one BBC: great things happen when we work together.

In America, when people talk about watching the news, most assume that they are watching CNN, FOX, or MSNBC. All three are owned by bigger companies or corporations with vested interests and usually an apparent skewed perspective. For example, FOX is owned by News Corporation, CEO Rupert Murdoch who gives generously to the Republican party and issues owned by that party. Not only are these three owned by bigger companies, but are all based out of the United States.

The BBC, the largest broadcast news operation in the world, is connected to BBC News and BBC Worldwide, both governed by the BBC Trust (Sambrook, 2008). The BBC news u umbrella encompasses BBC News 24, BBC Parliament, BBC World, interactive services, Ceefax and the BBC News Online (Sambrook, 2008). An article by the director the BBC News, Richard Sambrook, insists that the BBC is often the first place that the people in the UK and around the world come to find impartial news (2008). Some statistics he used to back up this claim came from an ICM, a British research company, poll saying that 93% of the United Kingdom population turned to BBC television, radio, text or online during the first two weeks of the war in Iraq. The survey also showed that in the first week of the conflict, BBC News 24 was seen by 70% of the population—40 million people.

In 2006, the BBC was granted a royal charter that has allowed them money from the government. However, in the agreement between the BBC and government, it was clear that the BBC would retain all editorial control over all media sources. This allowed them to stay true to the first value of being impartial, independent and honest. To drive the point home, and emphasize the idea of nonpartisanship and dedication from the BBC, let the chairman serve as an example. The Chairman of the BBC Trust is Sir Michael Lyons. He had been a very active and revered politician in Britain on behalf of the Labour Party for over 20 years (Conlan & Holmwood, 2007). The Labour party is equivalent to the American Democratic Party (Conlan & Holmwood, 2007). However, upon his appointment to chairman, he resigned from the party, and went on to give speeches and interviews promoting the necessity of a ‘spin-free’ broadcasting company (Conlan & Holmwood, 2007). In an article from the Guardian.co.uk, Lyons is quoted saying, “A BBC that is not independent is, frankly, not worth having. It certainly would not be able to meet the demanding public purposes laid out in the new charter, nor would it long continue to enjoy the public's affection and trust,” (Conlan T. , 2007).

This dedication was apparent in the news stories leading up the election. It was sometimes as if the reporters would wait for the fact sheets to roll in from the candidates and then write a story with varying opinions and little analysis.

Perspective

Five years ago, the BBC and ten other national broadcasters from around the world held a poll that asked the people of the world what they thought of the United States of America. It is important to remember that at this time, America had drug the entire world into essentially a 9/11 witch hunt in two Middle Eastern countries. The results were not very favorable to America in many aspects.

For example, the results, all presented in graph form showed the only Americans had a favorable perception of how we deal with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict (BBC, 2003). In another question, many nations thought that America was more dangerous than North Korea, Iran, Syria and many other hostile nations (BBC, 2003). The final question asked how much safer they were with America’s military.

While many might think that this unfavorable perception of the United States might influence the way that the BBC writes and covers the Presidential Election, this is not true. Stereotypically, America is both envied and hated across the globe. Some insist that ‘Globalization’ and “Americanization” are one in the same, meaning that America’s culture and influence the rest of the world (Owolabi, 2001). This makes it easy for the BBC to be unbiased.

Sticking with their second value, “Audiences are the heart of everything that we do,” the BBC would have to be unbiased. With news like BBC America on one hand, and then news going to Jordan, they have to report the facts; and only the facts. Because people’s perceptions are so different across the globe, and the audiences that the BBC reaches, it does not make sense to shape the news in a certain way or to have a set agenda of news.

Agenda, as defined by McCombs (2005), is “defined abstractly by a set of objects.” This, occurring especially within biased media sources like MSNBC and FOX News, is often defined by ownership of issues. For example, Republicans ‘own’ crime, national security, and foreign policy, while Democrats champion health care, social welfare issues, and income and job security (Petrocik, 1996). Again, since the BBC has a variety of different publics to keep in mind, and also given that those involved with Trust, the governing branch have removed themselves from positions of political influence, it is not surprising that they cover a large variety of issues in nonpartisan ways.

Reports show…

Tracking the BBC for over 10 weeks, then later analyzing the content, it is clear that the newsworthiness of some things differed from other US sites, but was less ‘spun.’ Many times the stories had a much broader perspective. For example, when the economic bailout became big news within the election, the BBC ran stories with comments and insight from the McCain campaign, as well as the Obama. When McCain decided to suspend his campaign, rather than praising him, as Fox probably did, or criticizing him, as MSNBC probably did, they stated the facts. The article headlined, “US rivals in economic crisis talk,” read, “Mr McCain has suspended his campaign over the crisis, but Mr Obama says voters should hear from the candidates. The two men are scheduled to attend a meeting with the president and congressional leaders at 1600 local time,” (BBC News, 2008).

Throughout the weeks, checking at least three times per week (Tuesday, Friday and Sunday), the BBC reportedly had 22 neutrally framed stories based on issues, meaning that they were not supportive or unsupportive of either the McCain or Obama. They also had 28 neutrally framed stories about the character of either candidates. This means that they might say that McCain is a maverick, but Obama is a progressive thinker. Rather than taking ownership and calling either of them anything, however, the BBC had this way of finding someone else to call them that. For instance, they might say, “McCain, the self proclaimed ‘maverick’” or “Obama, who Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House, calls the most progressive member of the Senate…”

The BBC has stayed true to their mission, vision and values during this election. They stated the facts, without the ‘spin’ that many see in American news. It appears that in a country of biased news, one may have to rely on the British to hear the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Bibliography

BBC. (2008, November 24). About the BBC. Retrieved November 24, 2008, from BBC Home:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/purpose/

BBC News. (2008, September 25). US rivals in economy crisis talks . Retrieved November 24,

2008, from BBC News: America:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/us_elections_2008/7634810.stm

BBC. (2003, June). What the world thinks of America. Retrieved November 24, 2008, from BBC

News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/programmes/wtwta/poll/html/default.stm

Conlan, T. (2007, November 29). Lyons vows to keep BBC Trust 'spin free'. Retrieved November

24, 2008, from Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/nov/29/bbc.television2

Conlan, T., & Holmwood, L. (2007, April 12). Lyons resigns from Labour party. Retrieved

November 24, 2008, from Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/apr/12/bbc.politicsandthemedia

Damazer, M. (2008). Editorial policy. Retrieved November 24, 2008, from About BBC news:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/aboutbbcnews/hi/editorial_policy/newsid_3247000/3247578.stm

McCombs, M. (2005). A look at Agenda setting: Past, present and future . Journalism Studies , 6

(4), 543-557.

Owolabi, K. A. (2001). Globalization, Americanization and Western imperialism. Journal of

Social Development in African , 16 (2), 71-92.

Petrocik, J. (1996). Issue ownership in presidential elections with a 1980 case study. American

journal of political science , 40 (3), 825-850.

Sambrook, R. (2008). About BBC News. Retrieved November 24, 2008, from bbc.co.uk:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/aboutbbcnews/hi/this_is_bbc_news/default.stm

Week in review...

As in other weeks, the BBC has been closely following the election this week. And, also like other stations, I'm sure that the economy has been in the forefront. The issues this week, include the following:
1. The Debate
This in itself was an issue. This was a pretty big deal because of the other issues (economy, McCain, Palin), all fed into this. The economic crisis, the close second, could not be ignored. This became part of the debate, and was thus covered, and the fact that this was going to happen definitely making headlines. The economic crisis was a news story, and that related to the election was a news story... but the fact that this was going to be covered in the debate was the bigger story.
2. The economic bailout...
The US is facing the worst economic outlook on Wall Street since the Great Depression. This has an effect on the entire world market. The measures that the government is taking, and the candidates' response has made headlines, as well. Economic & Foreign policiy is what is going to decide this election, because every American is concerned. the BBC does a pretty good job at telling what the candidates think without bias.
3. McCain suspending campaign
This is a story, because it affects the debate and is directly related to the economic bailout. McCain, whose campaign slogan is "Country First," is fulfilling his duty as senator, putting his campaign second. Supporters look and say-- this kid mean business--- and Obama called him out saying that it is important that McCain be able to multi-task. The BBC said, "Republican John McCain said he was suspending his campaign to return to Washington to deal with the crisis.

But Democratic rival Barack Obama said it was "more important than ever" for US citizens to hear from the person who would soon be "dealing with this mess"."

4. Palin's talks with world leaders.

Palin will face Joe Biden in a debate this week. Palin meeting with world leaders is important because, until this year she didn't even have a passport. Her experience with foreign policy consisted of her proximity to other nations. The BBC wrote the story in such a way that made it appear that these meetings were mostly in preparation for the debate.

5. Past presidential debates

The BBC, like others, liked to look at past presidential debates to compare this debate to. They talked about debates such as the 1960 debate between Kennedy and Nixon, and even the Bentson-Quayle VP debate. The VP debate between Palin and Biden is expected to be a factor in the upcoming election, not something you see everyday in a American presidential elections. Also-- reminding everyone of the past election mess-ups, helps keep everyone looking for the current candidates mistakes.

This aligns pretty well with what my group of friends, and peers are talking about. I went home this weeknd, and not only was my aunt and uncle watching it (baby boomers), but so was my grandmother. I found it surprizing, though, that while my aunt and uncle decided a long time ago that they were voting for McCain, my grandmother hadn't decided yet. This debate, my family thought McCain won-- and the articles that the BBC wrote asking who won said that it was either a draw, McCain w/ a slight win, OR Obama winning by a landslide (those were few).

I feel like the BBC has done a great job with reporting this election, and I look forward to following it for the next 30 some days.

More economics as we prepare for debate

9:50 pm Tuesday September 23

This Friday is the first presidential debate that is supposed to be focused on foreign affairs. We know that this is where McCain is supposed to shine; we also know that public speaking is Obama's thing. The BBC reports that the Obama campaign, though, is not pumping up this debate. Instead of setting Obama up for success, they are setting McCain up for failure. The BBC reports, "This debate offers [Mr McCain] a major home-court advantage and anything short of a game-changing event will be a key missed opportunity for him."

They couldn't ignore the still growing concern of the economic crisis. They actually touched on something that I hadn't been hearing in the news. they said, "The two candidates - whose campaign plans have both been knocked off course by the crisis - have taken increasingly divergent paths on the bail-out, although both are moving gingerly lest they be blamed for blocking the rescue."

Yeah, they'll comment, but they won't have a discussion about it. They tend to attack the other candidate, rather than talk about the issue.

And we can't forget about our favourite* female vice-president. Sarah Palin has managed to stay in the headlines. Someone had hacked into her email-- but the story got juicy. It turns out that invesigators believe that it was the 20-year-old student David Kernell, son of state congressman Mike Kernell.

They also have a special editorial that I found interesting; it was about the view the rest of the world will have of the United States if we face, again, what we did in 2000. The author talks about the chances that we get a 269 to 269, and how that would make America appear weak. They also provide a new electoral map, showing exactly how this could happen; and also how this provides a much better chance to see our first women presidet; Nancy Pelosi.
They sum up what is important with one article. They said, "The candidates continue to give their responses to the US Treasury Secretary's $700bn economic bailout plan. McCain campaign managers lay into the media in general and the New York Times in particular."

This is what is important so far this week, but we'll certainly see how this changes as we grow closer to the debate, and election.

I know I'm not American, but I'd vote for....

WHAT? Again, the leaders of the free world's economy is crashing. We're staring an oncoming depression in the face. And... we're speculating who we would vote for if we were Americans?

I will give it to the BBC. I feel that the people at the BBC all have different feelings about Americans and our politics. This is because some articles seem down the middle while others lean a bit left or right.

The headline today {10:53 Friday September 19} is about McCain criticizing the bailout. This is a headline because historically, he has sided with Bush about many things. Is this a tactic to demonstrate how he can disagree with Bush? A way to show that he is not the same old Washington? It certainly doesn't seem that way. There's no mention of that in the article. It also fits in with the Republican platform: get government out and let us be!

Democrats should be saying, we'll give you the rules, so we'll give you the assistance, but McCain is saying, it is time that we stop helping them and they take responsibility for their institute. Obama wasn't in the headlines... but he got a section to himself about this whole situation. He is again appealing to this small town; talking about saving Main Street.

Why is this? In another article on the BBC, they talked about Big-City-Barrack vs. Small-Town-Sarah. While we know that most of America is made up of city dwellers, why has SArah Palin become so popular?

It's simple: look at the battleground states. Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia? Do you first think of Philadelphia? or Scranton? Columbus? or St. Clairesville? It's the small town voter that are hurting; and the ones deciding this next election.

I guess this array of articles makes it tough as to what really matters in this election... Will it be the (failing) economy that decides, or who can really rock out to John Mellencamp's "I was born in a small town" ?

white women, economic woes, West Wing & a bit of FDR

Today I found the RSS feed that sends me all the latest updates about the election according the BBC. I learned that there were many more articles that were hidden from other correspondents in America. Today, for example four articles came out; for the past three weeks, there have only been around 4 main articles a week about the election. It turns out, that it's more about where you look.

But what's important? Well, the first story of the day focused on the fact that football moms at Barrington High in Illinois, and their affection for Sarah Palin. The writer quipped about the fact that none of these women that were excited about the woman on the ballot knew a thing about Palin's policies. They were also quick to say that although some women think she is great, others do not see her as a feminist; she is pro-life.

But this isn't the story of the day. Anyone with a television has heard about the economy; Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae had to be bailed out; Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy; and Bank of America is buying Merrill Lynch. This is an issue that the candidates could not ignore. The entire country is feeling the heat. the BBC reported that this is consistently the number one concern in this election. What are they reporting that McCain & Obama are saying?

It appears that Obama is blaming Bush... again. McCain says that it is the fault of "ineffective regulation and management".

This article was super short; and it wasn't the last article for the day; the BBC went on to publish another story beforehand, as well as leave the two stories before that up. One was a story about how this entire situation was almost identical to one on the fictional show The West Wing. Newsworthy? eh... Interesting-- but what does this say about how interested the rest of the world really is in the American election?

I mean, really? Our entire financial institution is about to crumble. The Lehman Brothers made it through two wars and The Great Depression: we hit what those of us without homes thought of as a 'minor credit crisis,' and suddenly thousands are without jobs; the mayor of New York City is cancelling his trip to Africa, and the writers at the BBC are concerned about how our election is looking like a rerun of The West Wing? We're the leaders of the free world, and this is the article we're reading...

It makes it clear, once again, that although there are tons of issues, we want to focus on the ones that matter least.

Wrap Up and top 5...

Under 50 days left to win this election? What does the BBC think we should be looking at to decide who to vote for?
1. Sarah Palin's ABC special
2. Sarah Palin's family
3. Obama's fund raising ability
4. Sarah Palin on Sarah Palin ad, and Obama's refusal to apologize
5. 9-11 remembrance.

Looking at classmate's blogs, it appears that the BBC is following the America media as far as the agenda they are running. Sarah Palin has certainly shaken things up in the entire world. While many analysts might say that Palin was not vetted as she should have been, I think that McCain can see what happened to Obama in primary season, and I'm seeing a paralell to what is happening now.

Hillary 'leaked' things like the picture of Obama in a turban, and then the tape of his minister was all over the television. It seemed that no matter what you heard about him, his popularity continued to explode. The more controversy, the more he became recognized and popular. Sarah Palin stepped up, and she has been criticized for her pregnant daughter and her 'abstinence' push; the 'troopergate' scandal; the fact that she has children, one of which is special needs, one is pregnant, and the other in Iraq (all under age 20) and she's running for one of the most powerful positions in governement (time commitment?); and let's not forget the fact that she is 44 with little experience, which just happens to be the entire platform that McCain had built his election on...

Someone once said that 'there's no such thing as bad press,' and I think McCAin and Palin are experiencing those consequences... One thing is for sure; the BBC has bit on, and caught Palin fever...

Obama Returns

5:39 PM Sunday, September 14, 2008

After a week with Sarah Palin in the headlines, Obama returns. The main story this week is that Obama got almost a half million new donors and beat his previous fundraising record. In this month, he raised over $66 million...

They talk about how he will have much more money than McCain, which Obama will need after Palin's big premier on Thursday. Even though this was the headlining story, you couldn't help but notice the story underneath. That, my friends, is another story about Sarah Palin, and her husband being supenaed in the 'troopergate scandal'.

In their blog section, they have articles about what we've learned about SArah Palin, and what the American people are looking for in a president. Although there seems to be a larger number of stories about the REpublicans, they tend to have a more negative slant than those about the democrats, making it seem as though, they are a little more left...

This is another week of unimportant issue discussion... Although, the candidates' ethics are important, we should move on to the plan to solve the energy crisis; or how we can improve the economy; or what the president means to the rest of the world. Instead, we're looking how much money they are spending now; I can think of a lot of things that $66 million dollars could buy other than ads smearing John McCain... say, solving world hunger-- or perhaps fighting illertacy?

And we're live on air

09:21 ET, Thursday, 11 September 2008-- last page update
11:45 pm Friday night 12 September 2008--date accessed


Sarah Palin had just finished her interview. The BBC, as did most news stations posted this as the most important issue of the day... and seeing as how it was still the most important issue on Friday night, they must feel that this is definitely an important issue for the upcoming election.

The BBC opens this article with a clip from the ABC interview. They really focus on her 'lack of experience'. In the interview, it is almost like a quiz to ensure that she is knowledgeable and aware of current events. The BBC also cuts off the interview after she says that America should be able to attack countries suspected of harboring terrorists without the permission of the country that they're invading... Those living in Europe and really, the target audience for the BBC are not huge fans of America and our current war fiasco. This is definitely being spun in a way that is meant to hinder the success of the Republican Party.

The article then goes down to provide analysis of what this interview meant. Although they appear to be fair and balanced, when you look at the headlines, you see 'Lack of Experience' and they go on to talk about three paragraphs. The next headline is 'Proud.' There is one paragraph talking about how she is proud, and the others, again, are talking about NATO and her son, Track.

I feel as though, again, it is easier to attack a person and their record than it is to face the issues. I think that is because most issues do not have a simple solution, and while everyone is shouting for change, no one wants to stop driving their cars, or separating their trash, or donate more to charitable causes. Few want to give up their Saturdays to help the less fortunate and more people want to have more money; less to the government. Sure, we all want change-- but we don't want to have to change; we want others to do that... so instead of holding ourselves accountable, we mention issues, and then we talk about the things we're good at talking about; other people.

They start by saying that it didn't do much to change voters. People that liked her still like her; people that didn't... still don't.

You down w/ BBC?

So, the BBC, or British Broadcasting Company... liberal? conservative? perhaps right down the middle? Although you'll find reports (actually opinionated blogs) claiming that it may be a little left of center, I feel that this is one of the few news sources that are actually fair and balanced.

I remember being in England, and watching the daily news. There was no commentary-- no emotion-- hardly any emphasis on words during the news. It was facts laid out. They didn't find it necessary to speculate .

One downside of the BBC is that, without satellite, I don't get the BBC channel, and on the site, you can't watch what they are actually reporting because the media is only supported in Europe. I thus, had to decide from the webpage whether or not this site leaned one way or another. There were a few exceptions on YouTube. Here for example, is the coverage that they used 11 years ago when covering the Princess Diana tragedy:

This same story in America would have come with interviews, and possibly trying to get statements

I don't think that sensationalizing news is something that only America faces, but I do think that the media is far less imposing in Europe, allowing the public to make their own judgments. It's no secret, however, that, like most of the world, most of Europe and Australia (as I discovered last summer) aren't pleased with how things are going in Iraq, or with the Bush Administration. Over the next 15 weeks, we'll see if the BCC changes-- or if it will be the place for unbiased news.

Obama a year ago

One year ago, Obama was preparing for the long election road ahead. He was under some heat for some comments about the war (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/14/AR2007091402254_pf.html). This seemed to be a very important at this time, and probably because the economy was not in the situation that we're currently seeing. Gas prices were almost an entire dollar lower than it is today (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/mogas_home_page.html). However, the war was not the only discussion taking place, and the media was not the only audience.

While he was doing nothing less than starting a movement, really grabbing the attention of a younger demographic than those that are usually tapped for a presidential election in America, he was also grabbing the attention of International officials. In addition to angering the Pakistan-American community in Chicago, he also moved top Pakistan officials into releasing a statement saying, "As the election campaign in America is heating up we would not like American candidates to fight their elections and contest elections at our expense." (http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-32569005_ITM). Obama has been the center of controversy since he announced his intention to run, ranging from being a terrorist, to a terrorist fist bump, to not having enough experience. These controversies have done nothing but continued to fuel his popularity and energy.


A year ago, many Americans, myself included, never thought that this would be the year that a women or African American would have a serious chance at becoming the next president. At this point in the election, it seems inevitable and exciting. Obama is a man who went up against every possible challenge imaginable in an election (being a terrorist, being a minority, & fighting the 'Clinton Machine'), and thus far, been victorious. I did not foresee this current situation a year ago.

McCain a year ago

One year ago, John McCain was seen by the public to be an decorated POW & Vietnam War Veteran who was a little left from his Republican peers. He had been known as a maverick, making decisions based on logic and truth, but had began to be doubted by the public when defending President Bush and the Iraq war (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/10/AR2007071000759_pf.html). Some of that controversy was sparked when Bush said that having a timeline to be out of Iraq could not be done, and McCain supported that decision.

Also, at this time last year, the media was looking at the trouble that he was having fund raising, and really talking up Giuliani and Romney's campaign, as well. He was not a far right conservative, as Romney is, but also not as liberal as Giuliani. He was, however, without a doubt the expert on foreign affairs, and had the experience in Washington. Despite his experience with foreign affairs, and decorated war status, he was still making cuts to his campaign staff (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/03/us/politics/03cnd-mccain.html?ex=1184040000&en=ebc79dc2166baf13&ei=5099&partner=TOPIXNEWS).

He was still in the running, but was being slightly overshadowed, at least in the media by Mayor Giuliani and Governor Romney. Republicans thought that McCain would be a more moderate candidate. They may turn out to be correct, as there are several Hillary supporters who are voting Republican this election day. It's hard to imagine that a year a go, he was just trying to get the Republican nomination, and today those that were running against him are endorsing him; some in hopes of the VP seat, and others in hopes that Republicans stay in the oval office.