The race towards the middle, and stupidfying America

The nomination process mirrors the, Hotelling Theory and shows that Americans are all about popularity. In the primaries we search for a candidate that appeals to our vanity, a candidate that has a familiar name or face, or a candidate that really says nothing, harking back to the pre-Jackson era of seeking office is too "ambitious". Elections are all about trickery and deception and stating that we are not as good as we really are. This way if we do bas, it is expected and if we do great its a miracle! (even though we planned it like that, but shhh....do not tell anyone!) This process allows America to whittle the candidates down based on what? Popularity? Who kissed the more babies?

Does anybody remember Rudy Guliani? Some don't, stating Rudy who? and "Giuliani is done," said Andy Smith, the director of polling at the University of New Hampshire's Survey Center. "He has run possibly the worst campaign of a leading candidate that I can remember." (National Post)

But Why? He started to talk. Of course everyone knows about his personal trouble, but all he had to do is go along for the ride, but he didn't. I equate him to Darren McFadden the new running back sensation the performed better then anyone else at the NFL Scouting combine, yet has tons of personal baggage. But he has not addressed it, or made public statements, hes just fixing it and letting his work talk for him. "Americas Mayor" could have easily done that but did the "noble" thing and spoke about the issues and went the way of everyone who does that....home.

Its amazing to see the change of topics after the nominations, we start to talk about real issues, and drop the damn jokes of Hilary insulting her husband and appealing to women. We get down to the nitty gritty, but shouldn't that be the whole election process? I think so, leaving the propaganda and mudslinging to the past. Remember Lincoln almost lost the election because of his daughter...illegitimate daughter...oh wait that was made up.

Chris Brower

Works Cited:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/03/giuliani-wouldnt-go-for-a-ride/
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?id=223972

You Know What Burst my Bubble

In recent news we have heard the green party, independent, reform party and maybe a democrat at best. The 2008 third party candidate Ralph Nader has entered the race. What burst my bubble about Ralph is he has always come in to try to “stir things up.” Not at the beginning, but towards the end when all the candidates have put in endless hours of work, speeches, traveling, debates, and hand shacks. This I find is the only problem I have with the election process, in which one outside candidate can just jump in at the end without winning any state. Not just that, but Ralph doesn’t have to spend as much money or time in general to become a presidential nominee. But beside the point do you think Ralph will win, let’s look at his history report. Ralph has run for President of the United States four times in 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004, and will make a fifth attempt in 2008. In 1992 he ran as a write-in in both the New Hampshire Republican and Democratic primaries, and other primaries. In 1996 and 2000, he was the nominee of the Green Party; in 2004, he ran as an independent. All in which lost by a landslide, not only that but has taken votes from Democrat parties such as the 2000 elections where votes in key states that potentially might have cost Al Gore the presidency. Even look at other candidates that had changed the outcome of an election, such as Ross Perot taking the republican votes from George H.W. Bush in 1992 and costing him the election. Ralph Nader will nearly do the same in the 2008 election by taken the democratic nominee, whoever that maybe. I don’t mind a competitive race, but when a candidate does not put in the hours and effort as the other candidates that’s not right. So when Ralph Nader once again decided to just jump into this race that’s when it “Burst My Bubble”


Tim Lovell

Why is Huckabee still in the Race?

In the reading "The Elections of 2004" (pg18-41) it is evident how imperative it remains for a candidate to time the peak in their suppor. This is highlighted when considering Howard Dean and Mike Huckabee.
Huckabee's early victory in Iowa, attributed to his support among the evangelicals and a strong support among women, quickly saw him rise in popularity, however Huckabee has failed to build upon his strong start, and is now remaining in the race to the amazement, frustration and humor of others.
When Howard Dean's quick success came to an end, it was evident that he in fact, although competing against John Kerry, had actually helped him to win the nomination by mobilizing the democratic voters. So will Huckabee be able to play a similar role?
Huckabee's choice to remain in the race has raised many eyebrows in frustration, and recently, in laughter. His display on Saturday Night Live attempting to make light of his mathematical impossibility of winning, then ignoring his cues to leave the segment, further raise the question on why he remains? Republican party Strategist Whit Ayres in an interview with CNN highlights that as long as Mike Huckabee remains positive in his comments on McCain and does not stimulate a third party challenge from the right later on in the race, Huckabee's choice to remain could actually help McCain. This is accentuated if very conservative spokesmen continue to criticise Huckabee and make McCain appear more vote worthy to independents whom, as we saw in the Downs-Hotelling theory, will have to power to decide the election later this year. Huckabee believes that his continuation is of service to both the American people and McCain . In the same CNN segment as the Whit Ayres video, Huckabee explains that it is competition that breeds excellence, a lack of it, which would be evident with his resignation, would breed mediocrity. By remaining in the race, Huckabee is thus helping to build and train McCain in stamina, strength and not becoming sloppy, which will ultimately help him in the election against the Democrats.
In reference to "The Elections of 2004," there are obvious links between Huckabee's and Dean's campaign fate, however, will Huckabee be able to help a fellow party member in the same way that Dean did?

In response to Obama in Texas

With all the talk of Obama in Texas in the last post, his counter part Clinton seems to be all but counted out if she losses the race in Texas or Ohio. But why? Let us remember in a previous post that Obama has a some momentum going. He has won 11 straight contests since Super-duper Tuesday. His win in Wisconson last week, by a margin of 17% was his smallest victory since super-Tuesday. So momentum is definitely on his side. If he wins in Texas or Ohio or both, it is seemed that he will be unstoppable, just like the jugger-naut from X-men. So if he is not stopped on March 4 in Texas or Ohio, Clinton may be ran over by the momentum of his victories that she will have no other choice but to drop out and support Barack as the Democratic nominee.

This reminds me of the election of 2004, where John Kerry kept winning and gaining momentum after his victories in the contests in Iowa and New Hampshire. He just kept on winning and won the nomination because of all the momentum.

Info received from:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23339362/
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#WI

The Eyes of TEXAS are upon Obama

“We are sending George W. Bush back to TEXAS!” Applause by Democratic Texans is deafening when Presidential Candidate Barack Obama proclaims the end of an era for the nation. Although Texans feel slightly more attached to the current Texan President George W. Bush because of his native roots, but Democrats in the state do not seem to upset to see his term come to a close. Obama thoroughly enjoyed proclaiming this during his tour of Texas on the 22nd of February.
Although the campaigning day in Texas started with a tragedy (a Dallas police officer was killed when he fell off his motorcycle while riding in Senator Hilary Clinton’s motorcade), the trail still continued for both Presidential candidates.
Senator Clinton spent her time in Texas comparing Obama’s campaign promises to his alternative voting record in order to try and disarm his campaign. Without appealing to a direct demographic, she tried a general overall appeal by discussing her ideas for insurance policy reform and quoting, “"It's against the law to discriminate on the basis of age, religion, race or creed, but not against the sick. Well, I am going to change that." Clinton has used this line repeatedly to gain overall appeal, because insurance policies do not only affect one specific demographic, but rather everyone in the nation. Everyone in the nation gets sick and could be rejected by their insurance providers, and Clinton tried to use this in order to gain massive support. Her speech gained much support, but was it enough to win the state of Texas on March 4th?
Unlike Clinton, Barack Obama used campaign tactics that were more specific to the area in which he was appealing to. With Texas being so close to Mexico and having a very high Hispanic population, Obama laid out his immigration and economic plans for the future. Obama appealed to the people by stating he wants the government to facilitate illegal immigrants into becoming citizens and for the lower class immigrants to gain economic holds in society. If you work in this country, you should not be poor." Obama appeals to the lower class immigrants for support, who have hope that he can help change their lives. Although Texas does have issues with immigration due to its geographic location and Obama did lay out his immigration plans to the state, it seems that it might have fallen on deaf ears; any illegal immigrant listening to that speech cannot vote and cannot therefore throw their support behind Obama.
On March 4th, the vote of around 450 delegates is on the line when the states of Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont head to the polls. Will the eyes of Texas be upon Obama, or will Clinton conquer the Lone State State?

ARTICLES REFERENCED:
Christina Bellatoni and Brian DeBose.Eyes of Texas upon Obama. The Washington Post. February 23rd, 2008.
Nancy Cook. Ohio, Texas Voters Differ on Top Issues. NPR Weekend Edition. Sunday, February 24, 2008.

ATTENTION ALL FORMER DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES!!!!

We have heard it all. OBAMA, HILLARY, OBAMA HILLARY!!!!! Well just in January we were looking at eight presidential candidates for the Democrats. Yes, remember those debates back in the summer where minor candidates like Mike Gravel, a former Senator from Alaska, and Chris Dodd, the actual Democratic Senator from Connecticut, (the one with the white hair who wasn't Anderson Cooper) were fighting for airtime? Ahhhh the good ol' days.....

Well today for all intensive purposes it's just Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton left in the Democratic race (Technically speaking, Mike Gravel is still in the race for the Democratic nomination, and has not dropped out yet, but he has not won a single delegate). However, out of the former Democratic presidential candidates, none of them have announced their support for Obama or Hillary.
Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson and John Edwards may have dropped out, but they also have not endorsed any candidate. Their support is widely wanted by both campaigns, and in the past few weeks, Bill Clinton watched the Superbowl with Bill Richarson, and Hillary and Obama met with John Edwards and his family at his home in North Carolina. As the Ohio primary comes closer, there might be some pressure raised on Dennis Kucinich, who is still a Congressman from Ohio, to endorse a candidate. The two campaigns probably feel that with the support of their former contenders, they can gain some media attention, or even some delegates in the case of John Edwards as he did win 26 delegates in his run for the presidency. In a close race for the Democratic nomination, those 26 delegates might come in big at the convention.

Endorsements are big in general, or can amount to nothing at all. During the nomination process in 1844 for the Democrats, Martin Van Buren was running for the nomination, and James K. Polk ended up becoming a dark horse candidate after it was clear that the convention would be deadlocked. Sometime in the summer of 1844, former president Andrew Jackson called James Polk to his house and announced to him that Polk was his favorite for the nomination at the convention, essentially picking up the endorsement of Jackson. Long story short, Polk ended up winning the Democratic nomination for president, and then in November he won the presidency.
With endorsements flying around these days, some are huge and will add media attention like with Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama. Some are minor and don't mean anything. In the end, it is the endorsement of the American voter that really matters, but until they decide, former presidential contenders are being sought after now for the support of a candidate.

Information on the former presidential candidates received from:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/

Articles used in this entry from:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/obama-and-edwards-meet/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23303147

11 Debates Straight

At this point in time Barack Obama has succeeded in winning all of his last 11 debates with New York senator Hillary Clinton. The last of those debates was one of Hillary’s last chances to try and slow down the momentum Barack has built up over the past few weeks. The results of the last debate weren’t quite exactly what Senator Clinton had in mind. I’m sure coming into it she felt that it was a great chance to knock Obama off course, or at least slow his momentum.
In order to do this she needed to challenge Barack Obama and score a few points off of him. She failed to do this not because she was outshined by Obama, but because for some reason she refused to challenge him, even when the moderators gave her the opportunity to do so. However, this doesn’t mean that the debate was a complete failure for her. She did manage to make her point and make clear distinctions between her healthcare plan and Obama’s.
Hillary managed to make it clear that her plan would leave less Americans uninsured than Obama’s plan would. She also managed to display that her knowledge on healthcare outweighed Obama’s by a significant amount. However, when she tried to take a shot at his inexperience he replied by point out that he voted against a war with Iraq while she did not. It sent the message that he knows what he’s doing while she does not.
These debates remind me somewhat of the debates between Nixon and Kennedy during the election of 1960. Like Clinton with Obama, Nixon tried to point out Kennedy’s inexperience where Kennedy successfully nullified the statements by bringing up the fact that he and Nixon entered the senate at the same time. Also, just like the democratic primary debates, Nixon, like Clinton with Obama, tried to slow down Kennedy’s momentum during the Presidential debates. Hillary Clinton looks to succeed in the democratic primary debates where Nixon failed in his presidential debates. However, as of now, it looks as if Barack Obama is going to be one tough man to tackle for Hillary.

Potential vs. Experience

Potential versus experience, is always an interesting dynamic when awarding anyone any kind of pivotal position. In sports, you often see teams take a chance on a young rookie at the expense of a veteran player, hoping the potential of the rookie is better than the talent of the veteran. In the 2008 election 46 year old Senator Barack Obama represents that rookie potential, while Hilary Clinton represents the veteran experience for the Democratic nomination. Even if you know nothing about politics, you still likely know who Hillary Clinton is, and that she is the wife of former president Bill Clinton. However, chances are if you’re not into politics you had no clue who Barack Obama was until recently. The big name that Hillary carries seemed to be enough for victory early in the race for the Democratic nomination, however Obama has stormed ahead riding a wave of momentum. It is unclear who will come out on top, just as it was in 1860 when another young Illinois Senator was running for a nomination.
There is no doubt that this years election is unlike any other in many regards, the same can be said for the election of 1860, which to this day may have been the most important in our history. Like Obama, Abraham Lincoln was a young politician of Illinois running for his party nomination against a much more well known opponent. Interestingly enough he, like Obama, was running against a New York politician in William H. Seward. Seward, according to Paul F. Boller Jr, had, “long been prominent in national affairs, and was far better known than Lincoln, but he had made many political enemies.” (Presidential Campaigns 102) The enemies of Seward, and the lack of enemies against Lincoln would eventually lead him to victory on the third ballot, which represents the closeness in the nomination. The issues of the time were obviously centered around slavery, and because both Lincoln and Seward agreed on the issue, the nomination was to be based on charisma and the notion of potential versus experience.
This lack of experience has also played a major role in the Democratic primaries of the 2008 election. There have been many attacks on Obama in regards to this issue from a number of sources including Bill Clinton. http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120355718638881711-Lsw6ssRGQazgy3CoFlwP4L0A3mo_20080321.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top if you would prefer to watch click the following link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUm7tkgFGYs. As you can see in the video or read in the Times article, the argument here has nothing to do with the issues. This is in large part due to the fact that the two candidates are separated very little on the issues just as in 1860. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/
Though it is impossible to predict, I’m going to throw one out there, I predict that potential will again win out yet again, and not only will Obama win the nod for the Democrats, but I would also not be surprised in the least if he was the next President of the United States of America.

ATTENTION Youth Voters

According to the authors of our textbook, Controversies in Voting Behavior, there was party realignment that involved the movement of “younger voters toward the Republicans between 1980 and 1984 due to attraction to Reagan’s leadership” (Niemi, p.328). Although this youth registration was only a small piece of what some consider a realignment of the 80’s, it did show that a candidate could draw a greater proportion of newly registered young voters. This may have been through a combination of his message and his charismatic appeal to the public.
In the current election, Barack Obama is heavily courting the young vote and using campaign strategies to increase young voter registration and turnout. According to the article “Obama’s Youth Vote Triumph” in Time magazine by David Von Drehle (Jan. 4, 2008), “Obama's youth-oriented campaign drew under-25 voters to Thursday's Iowa caucuses in record numbers, and these first-time voters gave him most of his margin of victory.” Obama won 57% of the youth vote in Iowa, compared to 11% for Clinton. This also created an increase in young and newly registered Democratic voters. Another article, from the Washington Post on January 10, 2008, titled, “Generation Y: Ready to Rock the 2008 Election, reports that younger voters are attracted to Obama because he “speaks a language they understand, using "we" and "us," giving the image of a country undivided by social class, race or political parties”. Obama is known for his motivational speeches, often quoting Martin Luther King Jr., and using the "fierce urgency of now" to explain his need for change (“Generation Y”).
According to the Time article, “Turnout among the youngest slice of the electorate more than doubled from 2004, when Howard Dean's intense campaign on college campuses produced far more modest results. This was part of an overall surge in Democratic participation — but while overall Democratic turnout jumped 90%, the number of young Democrats participating soared 135%“ (Drehle).

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1700525,00.html
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0110gen-y0110-ON.html
Niemi, Richard G and Herbrt F. Weisberg. Controversies in Voting Behavior, Third Edition.Washington, D.C.: C Q Press, 1993.

Will of the people.........?

As the primary season is well upon, and primaries and caucuses are being held in each state, the delegate process is also in full swing. The delegate process is simple at first glance. A candidate must receive a majority of the delegates awarded. In the recent past, most of the time a candidate will receive a majority of the delegates, with no real problem. For the Republicans, the number of delegates needed is 1,191, and for the Democrats it is 2,025. One would think that who ever wins more primaries and amasses more votes would be the winner as the delegates are bound by how their state votes. While this is the case with the Republicans, the Democrats is a bit different. They have not only delegates selected by the vote of the state, but they also have a series of "super delegates." These are a system of party elected leaders, such as governors, congressmen, and Democratic National Committee members.
Information received from: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/02/delegate.explainer/index.html

As I am sure you all are aware, this primary season there has been a big fuss over these so called super delegates. The delegates awarded by the states based on the vote of that state are all pledged delegates and must vote for the candidate they pledged to vote for. However, super delegates are unbound and can vote for any candidate they please. For instance, in the state of Massachusetts, Hillary Clinton won by 15%. The pledged delegates are easy here, she won the state, so she wins more delegates. However some of the super delegates in this state, such as big names like Senator Ted Kennedy, Senator John Kerry, and Governor Deval Patrick, have all endorsed Clinton's competitor Barack Obama. A major criticism is that these super delegates are not bound by the will of the people. Even though a majority of people voted for Clinton in Massachusetts, some of the super delegates in the state like Kennedy and Kerry, are free to vote for Obama at the convention. Now, while Obama is ahead in pledged delegates, and he has won more states, Clinton is ahead in super delegates. A main concern by many Democrats is that even if Obama wins more pledged delegates, but does not receive a majority of the delegates (2,025), Clinton could win the nomination. Many feel this is undemocratic, and that the super delegates should cast their vote for either who won their state, or the candidate who has the most pledged delegates at the end. Some feel the super delegates should vote based on the will of the people.

Article from and info received on super delegates from:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23233415/
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html

Now, all this talk about the will of the people reminds me of an individual from our studies in class. This person is Andrew Jackson. In 1824, the will of the people was to vote Andrew Jackson into office. He won the popular vote, but in a crowded field of presidential candidates, he did not win a majority of the electoral vote. So the race went to the House of the Representatives, where Jackson's opponent, John Quincy Adams won, even though more people voted for Jackson. He felt that the will of the people was not listened to. Four years later, Andrew Jackson won, and in 1832, he won reelection. In that 1832 election, he won a majority of the electoral and popular vote. He based his claim on the will of the people, as the majority of those who voted, voted for him. He was able to base a lot of his policies, like vetoing the national bank charter bill, based on the will of the people.

It is interesting that the super delegate process today and what happened in the 1820's and 1830's are similar as both Jackson and opponents of the super delegate process base their claims on the coveted "will of the people."

Obama! Clinton! Obama! Clinton! Wait, are there republicans in this election too? Oh yeah . . . McCain!
It is funny to joke about but it is definitely one of those “sad but true” statements. With the competition between Clinton and Obama heating up, media coverage for the republican candidates has dwindled to almost nothing. Reading the headlines on the fox news web page, out of the 6 headlines under their political section, only one headline is on a republican candidate. To no ones great surprise, that candidate is John McCain. Moving over to CNN's website, and their biggest story on the republican party is Mike Huckabee's refusal to withdraw from the primary elections.
Granted with McCain carrying 49% of the delegate votes right now, there is really not much left to report on. Even our own blog site is loaded with information about Obama and Clinton. It would seem that our class has a general liberal bias.
I think the irony of it all is that a lot of the issues that most people consider to be strictly split between democrats and republicans, aren't. Obama, Clinton, and McCain all oppose same sex “marriage.” All three believe it is the state's right to choose for itself and that “civil-unions” are OK, alloying homosexual couples to enjoy the same legal benefits. Also, we can look at Immigration reform. Most democrats like to look and laugh at the idea of the Republican's spending billions of dollars on a 700 mile fence. What is funny about that is both Obama and Clinton voted in favor of it.
I just thought it would be important to throw some issues up here on the board. And let anyone who reads this blog know that not all college level adults are complete Democrats. Just most of them. Don't mind the T-shirt, just an attention getter.

The Evolution of the Stump Speech from 1840 to 2008:

Nicholas Bindle (Second President of the Bank of the United States) once said, “Let Harrison say not one single word about his principles or his creed –let him say nothing-promise nothing” (Boller, Presidential Campaigns and Elections). This advice given to William Henry Harrison on how to appease the many factions of his political party, during his presidential campaign speeches, was not only relevant in 1840 but remains so in 2008.
William Henry Harrison was the first presidential candidate to actively campaign for the position. According to the book Campaigns and Elections by Paul F Boller Jr. presidents of the past relied mostly on their party, or their friends to campaign on their behalf, , but they had never actively gone out and recruited the vote of the American people like Harrison did. Harrison was advised by numerous people, including Bindle, to be vague and never commit to a position on any issue “Let no Committee, no Convention, no town meeting ever extract from him a single word about what he thinks now and will do after (Nicholas Bindle, 1836). This advice proved to be the best possible thing Harrison could do since his political party encompassed southerners, anti-masons and republicans, and taking a stance on one issue or another could alienate a group within his party. During the previously mentioned speeches Harrison avoided taking any side on an issue while simultaneously focusing the attention on his personal achievements “he carefully avoided saying anything of substance…he dwelt largely and length on his status as an old solider and a farmer” by doing so Harrison pleased everyone in his party (Bolger 70). Finally Harrisons stump speeches, vague in their nature, could be replicated across the country, due to a media system which was in his developmental stages.
This idea of stump speeches to appease the many factions of one’s political party, continued beyond Harrisons campaign into the 21st century. Examples of being vague on the campaign trail can be found in George Herbert Walker Bush’s’ campaign for the White House in 1980 and the way he portrayed himself as a moderate, on the majority of issues http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0068080-00. He did so in order to preserve unity within the Republican party. In the 2008 race for the White House, the American public has seen both Democratic candidates deliver stump speeches repeatedly, Barak Obama(http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2006/12/update_obamanew_hampshire_tell.html) delivered the same stump speech on several occasions where he tells some story frp, his life and ends with a quote from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. In Hillary Clinton’s stump speeches she has also recounted stories of her life while including some criticisms of her opposing candidates (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/A_new_edge_to_Clintons_stump.html)
Finally Republican candidates Mike HucKabee and John McCain are also familiar with stump speeches. Huckabee tends to be evasive on many issues and when asked about why he voted on a certain issues in the past, he calls attention to how much weight he has lost. John McCain on the other hand, when asked about where he stands on various issues will call the public’s attention to his service record.
In my opinion the stump speech given by presidential candidates has not really changed since 1840 when William Henry Harrison first decided to “take to the stump” (Bolger, 70). The only difference lies in the present day Medias ability to make the country more aware when a candidate is telling the public the same things over and over again.

The Battle for Youtube

No one is denying that the intrnet is having a huge impact on the campaigns this primary season. From quickly spreading the word, to easily raising funds, to rallying youth support. While Facebook and Myspace are two of the most populated sites for young voters, Youtube is another one of the many forums being used for online support...and attacks of all the candidates.

Browsing under the candidates full names gave quite a different listing of results. The top Hillary Clinton results were nearly all videos either making fun of her or pointing out some of her not so professional sound bites. These included the overall positive Sopranos Parody, Mike Gravel beraiding her in an early debate, a parody of an old Apple commercial against Clinton, and the "Well, that hurts my feelings" sound bite from the New Hampshire debate.

When searching for John McCain the results weren't all that positive either. The top result was a comparison of video clips of McCain and Dr. Strangelove. The video paints McCain as a warhawk in a time when it is no longer the "cool" thing to be. Another one of the top results was a sound bite from a question and answer session at a high school where a student asks the candidate if he thinks he might be too old for the white house. The battle hardened McCain replies with a very professional answer of his work ethic before ending the answer with, "Too old? Thanks for the question, you little jerk."

Huckabee's results were a tad more positive than Clinton or McCain. Two of the top results are Huckabee's attack on Romney for not being conservative enough. The third top result was one of my personal favorites, the Chuck Norris effect. The video is a funny one of how Huckabee with put Chuck Norris to work protecting our borders, all while laying out some of the best Chuck Norris jokes around.

By far, however, the winner has to be Barack Obama. The most accessible candidate for young voters and best orators in the primaries come out on top with nearly nothin but positive results. The only negative results are a Fox News video attacking the Senator and a sound bite of Obama admitting he "inhaled frequently." The most popular of his videos is the recent video done by pop music artist Will.I.Am. It takes Obama's very popular Yes We Can speech, another one of the top results, and puts it to music while being sung by a handfull of celebrities including Will.I.Am and John Legend. One of the other top videos, and funniest, is Obama guest starring on the Letterman Show reading the Top Ten list, shown below. How important is the internet? We'll have to wait and see come November!

Barack Obama's Top Ten List of Campaign Promises

10. Keep budget balanced by renting the Situation Room out for sweet 16's.
9. Double your tax money at the craps table.
8. Appoint Mitt Romney secretary of lookin' good.
7. If you bring a gator to the White House, I'll wrassle it.
6. I'll put Regis on the nickel.
5. I'll rename the tenth month of the year "Barack-tober"
4. I won't let Apple release the new and improved iPod the day after you bought the previous model.
3. I'll find money in the budget to buy Letterman a decent hairpiece.
2. Pronounce the word Nuclear, Nuclear.
1. 3 words: Vice President Oprah

Obama wins 8 in a row! That's how most of the headlines are reading as this week draws to a close. “Tonight we're on our way!” Obama could be heard telling his supporters as the results came rolling in. As reported by the LA Daily news, Obama has pulled into the lead with 1,210 delegates, while Hillary pulls up the rear with 1,188. Both of them are still a ways away from the required 2,025 delegates required to win the primary.
It may not be so surprising that Obama is winning states over Clinton, but what is surprising is the margin in which he is doing so. In DC, Obama pulled in about 75% of the vote and in Virginia, he managed about 62%. As most people can agree, these are definite majorities.
Further adding to the agony of defeat that Clinton is currently experiencing, her deputy campaign manager, Mike Henry, resigned to leave the campaign in the hands of Maggie williams to build her own team. Clinton was quoted by the NY Daily News as saying, “I'm tested, I'm ready, let's make it happen.” Whether or not this new change in Clinton's campaign will lead to positive results in the remaining primaries we will have to wait and see.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/02/12/2008-02-12_hillary_loses_deputy_campaign_manager.html?ref=rss

http://www.dailynews.com/ci_8244982

Team B-Week 2 (Post 1)

It seems like every candidate running in the 2008 election has an angle or different approach on how they plan to win. The democrats are promising change while the Republicans are promising security and the well-being of the country. In the end every candidate wants to appeal to as many people as they can. Just as in the 1928 elections with Jackson and Adams, the people today are more concerned with the person instead of the issues at hand. All the candidates are bringing up the same social issues involving gay rights, the economy, and the war. As discussed in class, each of the candidates are using issue framing to bring in their voters. Voters today are fed up with the current state were in that they want change; yet, do know who to choose because no one seems genuine enough to solve our problems with the economy and the war. Candidates such as Hilary Clinton are using issue framing and concentrating on the main issue that is of most concern to people such as the war in Iraq. Every candidate has the same view that change is needed in the war with Iraq, from there they will have to use different technqiues to aquire more people on their sides. Clay's tactic in the 1928 election was to use the Federal Bank as a way to take that issue and make an argument to abolish it to appeal to the people. Today, all the candidates have a certain angle in their campaigning strategies; yet, in the end their main goal is to appeal to the voters with an image that they can depend on them and trust them to take the social and economic issues of today

Liberty's Cost (Team B Week 2)

Congressman Ron Paul often declares himself a critic of federal spending, and touts himself as a Libertarian. It appears however, that Congressman Paul, as with the man many consider to be America’s first libertarian, Thomas Jefferson, do not always practice what they openly preached. The Congressman conveniently sets aside his strict construction of the constitution for earmarks, just as Jefferson did so for territory.

The Wall Street Journal, The Congressional Quarterly, The Liberty Papers, The Cable News Network, and The Fox News Channel have all researched the Representative's "fiscal frugalness". Unfortunately for Representative Paul, he is neither frugal nor libertarian in his earmarking.

According to The Wall Street Journal, Congressman Paul is planning to request an astronomical $400 million dollars worth of earmarks this Congressional year. The libertarian Congressman has requested $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to pay for research into shrimp fishing. That just scraps the surface of the proposed spending.

According to David Nather of The Congressional Quarterly, Paul is decrying irresponsible and unconstitutional Federal spending, while he requests earmarks for his district that:" includes two projects to improve the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, at a combined federal cost of roughly $32 million. There’s also the sunken ship Paul wants the feds to remove from Freeport Harbor. And he wants the feds to take charge of maintaining the Pix Bayou Navigation Channel. There’s also a feasibility study for flood, hurricane and storm damage control projects along the coast. And there’s the mysterious “project in the vicinity of Galveston Bay.” (The bill provided no other details.)"

Congressman Paul doesn't see a conflict between libertarian ideals and rampant earmark requests for spending. As he put it in a floor speech last year, “earmarks . . . are a symptom of the problem, not the cause. The real problem is that the United States government is too big, spends too much, and has too much power.”

The Congressman goes on to justify his spending propensity as an offsetting action against executive power:" a crackdown on earmarks, he says, would only grant the executive branch more control over where the money goes. The total amount of spending wouldn’t change. “There’s nothing wrong with designating where the money goes,” Paul says — so long as the earmark is “up front and everyone knows about it,” rather than having it slipped in at the last minute with no scrutiny."The Congressman claims that in an ideal world there wouldn't be a federal income tax, however, as long as there is one, he has a responsibility to help his constituents recover some of the tax dollars the government has taken from them. Whether or not his constituents want that reclaimed money going to the marketing of wild American shrimp and shrimp fishing research is not clear.

Representative Paul has a unique approach when throwing his support behind certain earmarks. He sponsored ten earmarks for a particular bill and then sat out the vote when the bill came to the floor of the House. This is clever of the Congressman, even if it is less than libertarian of him. This technique ensures that he will bring home the bacon to his constituents, when he feels the bill will pass anyway with his earmarks, while pacifying his anti-tax supporters who helped him get elected to Congress.

This reminds one of Thomas Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. Jefferson, like Paul, had always been a strong and unyielding advocate of a strict interpretation of the constitution to ensure limited government both in scope and size. According to Dunn’s Jefferson’s Second Revolution, Jefferson confided to his closest advisers that he realized the Louisiana Purchase was unconstitutional:

To his closest advisers the president confided his understanding that the Constitution had not given the government the necessary authority to acquire and incorporate new territory into the union.

President Jefferson toyed with the idea of a constitutional amendment but ultimately set the idea aside. He would later write that although the Purchase was “beyond the constitution” it was in such the national interest that he urged Congress to “cast behind them metaphysical subtleties” and approve the Louisiana Purchase. President Jefferson would later indicate that the constitution just had to yield to pragmatism in acquiring the vast territory. The powers of the federal government would expand right along with the new territory that the nation had acquired. Sometimes even to constitutionalists such as President Jefferson and Congressman Paul, the ends do justify the means.

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/allpolitics/0706/popup.congress.earmarks/pdfs/tx.14.paul.pdf

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-ronpaul_27tex.ART.State.Edition1.43bdd5f.html

http://afk.townhall.com/g/446a37bc-aa95-4a34-94c1-7643aabd2b7b

Ryan Christiano

It has been 209 years since the election of 1789, yet the very most basic ideals of democracy are clearly evolving and flourishing. This election of 2008 holds the potential to break the stigmatic rules of the past 209 years with the prospective of an African American male or a Woman to become Head of State. It is clearly evident that the winds of change are slowly increasing in strength; but will they stay strong and set a new precedent?

As my classmate highlighted earlier, the election of 1824 and the current election of 2008 share some distinct similarities. While the current election is yet to identify the two main party candidates, it is already evident that this political race, as in 1824, may well be decided by personality rather than policy. As Paul F. Boller Jr. highlights in “Presidential Campaigns”, the election of 1824 was dominated by “personalities, not issues” as is clearly evident in the current competition between Obama and Clinton in the struggle to gain the Democratic Presidential Candidate nomination. As democracy has evolved and flourished, so to has the ability to critique, and as highlighted in a previous post, slander. While the media in 1824 focused on slovenly dress, English wives, drinking, gambling and possibly murder, modern media allows us not only new degrees of slander, but also more in depth analysis of the potential presidential candidates, and a more thorough understanding of how significant a candidate’s personality remains throughout their campaign.

In a recent article by Joe Klein for Time Magazine, Klein highlights how the personalities of the Democratic party frontrunners not only have born a new interest and vigor in democratic voters, but may also see a greater divide between the candidates and their potential support, “Both Clinton and Obama have difficulties reaching across …divides, and that is where the fear resides: neither candidate may prove strong or broad enough” (Klein). Klein highlights that each member tailors their campaign to suit their personality, Clinton attempting to prove her more extensive knowledge through debates and press questions, while Obama attempts to display his charismatic and inspiring personality through speeches. However, each is lacking where the other strides ahead, resulting in the deadlock that we are witnessing currently for the nomination of the Democratic Party (Klein).
One can only be expected to consider the potential strength of the candidates as running mates. Michael Duffy addresses this in “Clinton, Obama: Why Not Both?” where he highlights how beneficial “the visionary and the technician” partnership could be to the Democratic Party. However, Duffy highlights neither candidate is giving any indication that they may consider being the Vice President, as only can be expected when the candidates have remained so unbelievably close throughout the Primary elections.

This deadlock, similar to that for the Presidential nomination in 1824 between Adams and Jackson, will soon be resolved, but will these apparent personality flaws become further accentuated against the probable republican candidate John McCain and the Presidential election follow suit of the 1824 election on a personality basis, or will the battle to be the Head of State revert back to party lines and policy issues? Only time will tell.

Democrat, Republican, or Both?

McCain and Senator Lieberman

DeWitt Clinton

Similarities arise in the election of 1812 and the current campaigns for 2008. DeWitt Clinton played both the Republicans and the Federalists in that election by supporting conflicting views of the war in order to receive votes from both parties. McCain has campaigned with the support of Senator Joe Lieberman, a democrat Vice Presidential candidate in 2000--now independent, to target the independent voters. This relates to Dewitt Clinton through the fact that McCain is trying to gain support from not only his own party, and he’s succeeding at that. On Super Tuesday, 17 out of the 714 delegates were unpledged to the RNC.

Although McCain is not secretly campaigning for or against a war in this election, as was the case of DeWitt Clinton, he is under question from his own party members about his GOP values, or lack thereof. In the past week, many adamant Republicans have publicly expressed their contempt of John McCain with reasons for being too liberal. In a CNN Political Ticker blog, radical conservative Ann Coulter showed disdain for McCain and states that she would campaign and vote for Hillary Clinton versus the Republican frontrunner in a general election. Throughout Mitt Romney’s campaign, he consistently criticized McCain’s lack of conservatism on his stances on global warming and immigration.

Dewitt Clinton intended on changing his views for whomever he was addressing in order to gain votes. McCain has not been so bold compared with the deceit of Dewitt Clinton, however in the past he has pulled a complete turnaround on his views. According to his profile , in 2001 and in 2003, McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts, however he currently is in favor of extending the cuts through 2010. He very well could have used these changes as strategic steps in gaining support from not only his party, but from independents as well.

Although the campaigns of DeWitt Clinton and John McCain differ in so many ways, they are similar through the fact that they both campaigned and appealed to other parties--Clinton with the Federalists and McCain with the independents.

Image Sources:

Clinton, DeWitt. [Photograph]. Retrieved February 8, 2008, from Encyclopædia Britannica Junior: http://junior.britannica.com/eb/art-9504

Does a McCain-Lieberman ticket make sense? McCain, Lieberman [Photograph]. Retrieved February 8, 2008, from MSNBC.Com:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16530615/

*EDITED*, I apologize for the layout of the pictures, the preview was misleading.
Edited, fixed hyperlinks

-Diana Davino

Attacking the Issues

In the upcoming election we are confronted with many issues from the removal of our troops to what provisions are necessary, so that health care can be affordable for all Americans. We have experienced many fiery debates wherein candidates promote their resolutions concerning the flaws of the present government while not refraining from any opportunity to downplay the effectiveness of their opponents’ plan. Unlike the elections of 2008, the presidential election of 1816 was quite dry. The war of 1812 had ended and the state was not under any imminent danger, the successor of the election 1812 was met with a quiet office. However, we can all agree that the same fate will be quite unlikely in the election of 2008. Whoever occupies the oval office will be welcomed by barrage of issues that demands immediate attention.

Team "A" Week One, Post Two

Dirty Tricks That Could Change the Out Come 1824 and 2008

With reading the book of Presidential Campaigns and the ever passing Super Tuesday, there was a prevalent connection between the elections of 1824 and 2008 elections. When the class had the decision on it, we too made the connections between the two. If you were to look back on the election of 1824 it was really the first elections that got nasty. For example “Newspapers glorified the candidates they were backing extravagant terms and vilified their opponents in abusive language” (PC 35). Thus giving to the first negativity and low blowing commits towards another opponents. Yet you see this in almost every major presidential elections that surrounded major topics such as war or a “lazy economy”, for the past hundred years or so. But where do you see it today? A recent article printed “that in South Carolina residents found a Holiday greeting card from Mitt Romney in their mailboxes. The message contained within the card accentuated some of the more controversial differences between Romney’s Mormon beliefs and those of other faiths. The problem with the cards was that nobody in the Romney campaign or anyone affiliated with him sent them. Just more dirty tricks from South Carolina” (http://www.newsvine.com/). Putting aside all the negativity we also see connections within voting behavior. With Andrew Jackson of Tennessee he was well liked not for serving in the house or the senate but for “military exposits”. Same goes for John McCain of Arizona, he too was looked upon has being from the west and having a seat in the senate. But more importantly his actions as a war veteran. People today as people back in 1824 can relate and agree upon their codes of ethics. Thus having a greet understanding as to why elections goes the way it does. Where we see that in 1824 and 2008 elections, the negativities that screams out of an each of the politicians mouths. With Super Tuesday over and we now have a better understanding as to whom will be sitting at each parties chair we will really start to see more dirty tricks come out of each of their parties, and we will see who really knows the issues that are most important to the people. “Remember history always repeats itself”.

Timothy Lovell

Team "A" Week One, Post One

I noticed in reading the JSR book, Washington’s reluctance to lead his nation. I always thought of him as a stand up leader, reading that he chose a democracy and a presidency, turning down a coronation of being king. He seemed so nonchalant in the reading and after 4 years just wanting to head back to “his plow and field”. (page 20 JSR) Yet this actually helped the country. His advisor's, mainly Hamilton, Madison and Jefferson, urged him to run, or as the book puts it to merely sit back and allow his name to be tossed in the hat. This, up until FDR, served as the unwritten headstone rule for the two-year maximum serving time of a president.

It also allowed for the reliance on advisor's and the cabinet, just another departure for a monarchy. If the first president was a person like Jefferson, who wanted to govern by his own morals, then the presidency would have enormous powers and he would have set incredible precedents. Jefferson purchased the Louisiana territory with no authority to do so, even trying to grandfather it into an amendment later on. Imagine this act done by our first president instead of the third and imagine how far he could have gone with no one following as an example before him.

I also noted numerous ties between the election of 2004 and of 1812. These ties can be linked to any of FDR’s reelections as well. The public seems to have more confidence in our leader during war time as well as unwillingness to change the person in charge when there is a war going on. Yet there are caveats to this. The war has to have a sense of hitting home and has to be a large one. For example World War II and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan connect to the war of 1812 showing that there was imminent danger to the American way of life.

As much as American’s protest for peace and diplomacy over force, there is an overbearing drive to keep our freedoms and way of existence, and if that means war or a fight then we are up for it. Bush won the 2004 election primarily by using the “9-11” tactic and showing the people that this war is not only necessary but a good thing. It also shows the stunning difference of elections after a war and during a war. Since Bush can no longer run, the debates and primaries are about change and the war in Iraq, yet what if it ended and we won? Much like the 1816 election it would be “dull as dishwater” (page 29 Presidential Campaigns) Instead we have been gearing up for this election for the past two years.

-Chris Brower