Religion Politics

The news lately about this election has not really been about the close race, or the fact that in less than a week a toss up state in Indiana will have their turn to vote in the race for the Democratic nomination, but rather it has been about religion. The whole controversy is over comments made by Obama's (now former and estranged) pastor, Jeremiah Wright. These comments were anti-American comments and some say that Obama did not to a well enough job in repudiating these comments. However, just yesterday, Obama basically split with Wright, saying he was shocked and appalled at his comments from earlier in the week. Overall, this may hurt Obama, but as many of times before, big issues one day are yesterday's news the next day. With this controversy with the Pastor Wright in the news today, I bet a lot of people have forgotten the whole deal with the rumor that Obama is actually a Muslim.

All of this hoop la around the religion controversy reminds me of the 1976 election with Jimmy Carter. In that campaign, Carter, who is a devout Southern Baptist from Georgia, did an interview with Playboy Magazine about religion. In it, Carter said that any man who looks and lusts for another woman, even in their own mind, is committing adultery, and that he was guilty of that sin. He then said that he was forgiven by Christ. The headlines in the news in the next few days read that "Carter Sinned" and "Carter Lusts For Other Women." This hurt his poll numbers and his standing among the public (sort of like what is happening to Obama right now), however Carter ended up winning the election of 1976 regardless.

Sources from:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/30/ED2010DQND.DTL
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/us/politics/01obama.html?ref=us

Electoral Tit-for-Tat

We have all heard it before, the Democratic Primary has been essentially going back and forth, or as Professor Cassino put it, tit-for-tat. It all started off in Iowa, with an Obama win. Then Clinton won in New Hampshire and Nevada. Not to be outdone, Obama won in South Carolina, and then a few weeks later, both candidates essentially split the super Tuesday contests and we are now here, for the most part tied, with Obama with what some put it as an advantage that is too far for Clinton to catch up to. Lately, after Clinton's win in the Pennsylvania primary, polling has showed that the race is tied nationwide among Democrats' choice for the Democratic nomination, and has been looking that way for about the past week. This back and forth and essentially tied up race for the Democratic nomination (thus the name tit-for-tat, or back and forth) is starting to wind down, and many Democrats hope that at the end of the contests in June, the nominee will be selected.

The next contests in this back and forth race is on May 6 (That is if you exclude the Guam caucuses that occur on May 3, but only have 4 delegates at stake). The two contests that occur on that date are in North Carolina and Indiana. With an electorate that would favor Obama in North Carolina (much the way the electorate in Pennsylvania favored Clinton) and since he is most likely to win that primary barring something totally unexpected, Indiana is the next big prize up for grabs in this tit-for-tat race. Many view this state as a toss-up, giving some momentum to the winner into the final few contests of the nominating season. Polls recently have shown this race to be tied, with no clear favorite. This entire campaign, we have seen that when one of the candidates wins, the other one makes a comeback a few days or weeks later in the next contests, thus tit-for-tat (ala Clinton's victory in New Hampshire and Nevada and then Obama's victory in South Carolina).

Now if in the last contests and if the super delegates don't decide fast enough, the Democrats could go to a dead locked convention in Denver in late August. That and all of this tit-for-tat in the primary season with each candidate going back and forth in the primaries reminds me of an election from not too long ago in 1976. In the 1976 race, GOP candidates Ronald Reagan and President Gerald Ford were going tit-for-tat in the primary season. When one won a contest, the other won would also win a contest. It was a close race, and neither was able to secure enough delegates to win the GOP nomination. The race went to the convention in the summer and a fight ensued between Reagan and Ford until President Ford finally prevailed and had enough delegates for the nomination. That finally ended the tit-for-tat primary season in 1976. If one candidate in this election for the Democrats isn't decided before the convention, we could possibly see something similar in what happened to the Republicans in 1976. We shall soon see if that tit-for-tat continues, if Clinton wins big in Indiana, or if it ends and Indiana goes heavily for Obama.

Information obtained from:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/ot_20080429_6505.php
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/29/polls-clinton-obama-tied-in-indiana/
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/29/clinton-obama-dead-even-for-fifth-straight-day/

Debates styles like Lincoln; differences since 2004 in parties

On Saturday April 26, 2008, Hilary Clinton announced to the nation that before the next major primary on May 6, she wanted a debate modeled off the historic debate in 1858.  The 1858 debate was between President Lincoln and Stephen Douglas which involved no moderator but just the two candidates challenging and answering each others questions.  Obama announced though the next day that he did not want to partake in another debate in Indiana or North Carolina and that he was not “ducking the debates” with his rival.  Maybe his reason for not wanting to debate again besides the fact that he had “21 already,” is the fact that since his debates his lead in the race went from 19 percent down to 7.  41 percent of Americans views have changed since Senator Obama was linked to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who’s sermons reached news a few weeks ago.
    

A great deal has changed since the election of 2004. Besides Bush’s approval rating plummeting to almost nothing, the Republican party seems to be losing voters. Of course with the war in Iraq, there are many that feel we don’t belong there and will vote democratic; yet, because of the marcopartisianship effect, there is still a threat of terror and September 11 in the backs of many minds which will lead to people staying Republican in times of crisis.  In 2004, Bush had a substantial amount of the Hispanic vote supporting him but that has changed since.  Now that there has been a wall built between Mexico and the US, with immigration controls tighter, Hispanics have left to go to the democratic side. Religious views are still the same with social issues somewhat different.  Obamas religion as well as McCain’s will definitely play a key role in the election process. It will be interesting to the see changes from 2004 to 2008 this year.

News article : http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/26/obama.debate/index.html#cnnSTCText

-Justin O'Connor

Racial Divide

Political parties throughout history have had a difficult time holding themselves together. This is especially true since 1940 when primary elections started to become more important in choosing the next party candidate. The election of 1940 was the first election to start using public opinion polls showing how much the country was favoring one candidate over another (Boller 252-254). It seems as though now the Democrats are really experiencing that problem known as the primary election. The biggest fear now is that race could potentially divide the party, even more than it appears it already has. As New York lawyer was quoted by MSNBC as saying of Clinton, “There’s no way for her to win this election except by destroying [Obama].” It seems as though this is the growing opinion as Clinton financial supporters switch sides to support Obama. Seventy-three of Clinton’s contributors who had made the maximum allowable contribution to her campaign, in March, donated the maximum amount allowable to Obama, clearly showing their change of support or distaste in the Clinton campaign.
As seen in previous elections, once supporters start changing horses, it does not take long until the rest of a candidate’s support dries up. This used to be the reason why the Iowa caucuses were so important. A candidate’s momentum was either built up or destroyed by the results of the caucus. However, these extended primaries have messed everything up, making it an all out brawl to the finish.
One of the major concerns is that this bloody battle will leave the democratic to bloody and bruised to fight the republicans in the election. That this primary will have put such a bad taste in certain party member’s mouths that they will not be willing to change their vote over to the other candidate.
There are a number of people who have a problem with the way the other member’s of the Democratic Party who keep bringing Obama’s pastor into the picture as an anti-American figure. As Reverend Jeremiah A Write Jr. was quoted as saying, "When something is taken like a sound bite for a political purpose and put constantly over and over again, looped in the face of the public, that's not a failure to communicate. Those who are doing that are communicating exactly what they want to do, which is to paint me as some sort of fanatic or as the learned journalist from the New York Times called me, a 'wackadoodle.' “ These kinds of attacks will just further separate the party and make it harder for them to reunite against McCain in the upcoming months.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24320557/

Boller, Paul F. Jr. Presidential Campaigns. Oxford University Press Inc 1984.

What should I trust more, what I see or what I’m told?

In the 1968 Presidential Campaign voters were exposed to images from the Vietnam War courtesy of television. The Museum of Broadcast Communications website states that “Vietnam was the first "television war." The medium was in its infancy during the Korean conflict, its audience and technology still too limited to play a major role. The first "living-room war," as Michael Arlen called it, began in mid-1965, when Lyndon Johnson dispatched large numbers of U.S. combat troops, beginning what is still surely the biggest story television news has ever covered”(Vietnam on Television). American Voters were for the first time able to rely on images of the war, rather than the words of Johnson’s administration. During the January 1968 State of the Union, Lyndon Johnson stated to the American people that there was much progress in Vietnam, but with the images the people were shown nightly on the news, Johnson’s assessment was hard to believe. “Since I reported to you last January:
--Three elections have been held in Vietnam--in the midst of war and under the constant threat of violence.--A President, a Vice President, a House and Senate, and village officials have been chosen by popular, contested ballot.--The enemy has been defeated in battle after battle.--The number of South Vietnamese living in areas under Government protection tonight has grown by more than a million since January of last year” (LBJ Library and Museum Website). http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/speeches.hom/680117.asp
This State of the Union was a statement to the American people that the war was going well, even though the media and television reports were telling them a drastically different story. Ultimately the unpopular images of the war outweighed Johnson’s positive portrayed and he decided to seek peaceful alternatives and not run for another presidential term. This conflict between media images and presidential messages (or in the case of John McCain presidential hopefuls) is something fairly common. In the 2008 election John McCain has been portrayed as having positive views on the War in Iraq, when the television and media reports have been mostly negative. A CBS news report states that John McCain's upbeat view of the war in Iraq isn't shared by many Americans, according to a CBS News poll. McCain's negative ratings have risen this year, and a sizeable number of Americans believe he's painted too rosy a picture of the situation in Iraq”(CBS.Com). As with the Vietnam War, those who view the Iraq War on television have a more pessimistic view of the situation “The poll listed on the CBS website also found that two-thirds of Americans continue to believe things are going badly in Iraq, about the same number as a month ago but more negative than one year ago. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/11/opinion/polls/main2670978.shtml. Some political analyst belive that if McCain does not alter his views on the war in Iraq, he could face the same political fate as Lyndon Johnson, only time will tell

The impact of the 1912 Primaries

In the primary elections of 1912 Teddy Roosevelt was running against William Taft in the first primaries. Former President Roosevelt won in landslide victories in 9 out of the 12 primaries. However, when the convention met to decide on whom the candidate would be TR had the nomination pulled out from under him and given to William Taft. The online Biography of TR boldly states that due to the 1912 primaries not deciding the winner, "never again would any political party decline to nominate the clear winner of the presidential primaries." (http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/life/bullmoose.htm)

That statement could be tested this year as the democratic primaries come to a close. Barack Obama heads towards the home stretch as the Teddy Roosevelt, with the most states won, the most votes overall, and the most pledged delegates. As the race is prolonged and dragged on by the hopes of Hillary Clinton the end could become even more like the 1912. Clinton is calling for Superdelegates, and even pledged delegates if they would be so kind, to back her despite the facts. She bases her case off of random facts such as she has won more larger states and has done better in the traditionally strong democratic voter categories.

Knowing the results of declining to follow the voice of the American people rang out loud and clear in 1912 when TR's third party the Bull Moose Party took second over William Taft and the Republican party, the Democratic National Party should tread lightly in the months to come. The Superdelegates have the ability to step in and end this pointless bickering. At any point the Superdelegates can step in and pledge their support to the clear victor of the people, but they have remained silent and allowed the party to be torn apart. What good is the past if you aren't going to learn from it?


Andrew Stoltzfus

Verified Trust.

When President Regan spoke of “trust, but verified” he meant the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union. The President could just as easily have been referencing the relationship between libertarians and Republicans. Some libertarians in the GOP feel very often like President Eisenhower, when in the run up to the 1952 presidential campaign, he was forced to align himself with Senator William Jenner, and after having to embrace him during a campaign event, remarked afterward to a confidant: “I felt dirty from the touch of the man” (Boller 52).

There has existed a “Cold War” of sorts between libertarians and Republicans through the decades. At times, these icy relations have thawed in the name of political expediency. The inception of the RLC, or, The Republican Liberty Caucus, has helped to bridge some of the more common divides between the philosophy of liberty and the Republican ideology.

This is not to say that the extremely uneasy alliance hasn’t had its drawbacks and stumbles. One suspects often times that libertarians and Republicans agree on core principles more often than not. Paradoxically, one realizes members of both respective governing philosophies are more often than not very reticent to concede this reality. Republicans often declare that they do not “need” libertarians to advance their political agenda. Libertarians sometimes declare that the Republicans do not reflect their values and are poorly conceived impersonators of true libertarian ideals.

In the Republican glory days of the 1990’s and through the early part of the twenty-first century, when they firmly controlled both chambers of Congress, Republicans might have been right. Those were heady times for the Republican Party. It seemed to Americans, and analysts alike, that the American people were secure in the cradling arms of Republican governance for the foreseeable future. There was no divided government for the Republicans to be concerned about. They had the House, the Senate, and even The White House in 2000.

Dawn has broken over a very different Republican Party. The gains achieved since the 1990’s were for all intensive purposes washed away by the Democrat Tsunami of 2006. Many liberty-minded and moderate individuals abandoned the Republican Party when the party of supposed limited government and fiscal responsibility began increasing the government’s size and scope. The Republican Party oversaw the greatest expansion of government since The Great Society (Goldberg). Add to this stormy mix an immigration policy that made liberty-minded individuals uncomfortable, and many saw a political alliance shattered by irreconcilable differences.

Turning to the minor Libertarian Party, the politically homeless former GOP members were confronted by an unacceptably radical utopian platform and a mandatory pledge that disavowed the use of force for political or social gain, in any circumstance. In a political climate such as the one America finds herself in now, where approval ratings are remarkably low for both Major Parties, the 2008 presidential election cycle would seemed to have been the opportunity that Libertarians should have seized upon to raise the prominence of the nation’s third largest political party, and welcome a disheartened electorate. The dualopoly of the U.S. electoral system dooms any minor party however, and the ‘party of principle’ is no exception. Thirty-five plus years of electoral drought will almost certainly continue on for the foreseeable future.

During the early appearances of his 1952 presidential bid, General Eisenhower attempted to strike a moderate tone. According to Paul F. Boller, Jr. in Presidential Campaigns: “He took the ‘middle road’ and, although attacking centralized powers in Washington, accepted the social gains of the Roosevelt era as ‘solid floors’ on which private enterprise could build a better life for people.”

By the Fall of that same year, however, General Eisenhower, a warrior by trade, was forced to make peace with the more right-wing elements of the GOP. Eisenhower met with Senators Taft (R-Ohio), Jenner (R-Indiana) and McCarthy (R-Wisconsin). Eisenhower remained privately embarrassed by these individuals and the right wing they represented of the Party, and perceived them as unprincipled and smear artists (Boller 283). Eisenhower’s embarrassment over those he had politically aligned himself with only increased when Senator McCarthy declared General George C. Marshall “a front man for traitors” (Boller 283). Eisenhower was close friends with General Marshall for thirty-five years, and was planning to defend his friend in a speech, when he quashed the particular portion of his speech defending Marshall, at the behest of Republican leaders.

The Republican Party needs libertarians more now than ever, and perhaps libertarians need the Republican Party if they are ever to find a successful vehicle in which to advance their ideals. Republicans can no longer afford to take Independents for granted, nor dismiss libertarians and their strongly held beliefs. In his piece “Libertarians and the Republican Party: Irreconcilable Differences, attorney Glenn Greenwald, wrote:

There are no more vibrant libertarian components left of the Bush movement. Libertarians (in the small "l" sense of that word) have either abandoned the Bush-led Republicans based on the recognition -- catalyzed by the Schiavo travesty -- that there are no movements more antithetical to a restrained government than an unchecked Republican Party in its current composition. Or, like Reynolds, they have relinquished their libertarian impulses and beliefs completely as the price for being embraced as a full-fledged, unfailingly loyal member of the Bush-led Republican Party.

In his article Keeping Libertarians Inside The Tent, which appeared in The National Review, constitutional attorney Randy Barnett wrote of political compromise between Republicans and libertarians:

Stop making snide gratuitous remarks about libertarians. Nothing turns off libertarians more than the sort of wholly gratuitous snide remarks about libertarians in conservative publications. By gratuitous I mean they show up even in articles about policies with which libertarians and conservatives agree. The more libertarians feel unwelcome in the coalition that is the Republican party, the more they will vote Libertarian…
[However], The Republican coalition is, after all, a coalition and libertarians if they are inside the tent cannot be expected to call all the shots.



If both chambers of Congress are to be taken back by Republicans in the foreseeable future, they will need the full-fledged support of the libertarian movement within the Republican Party. Moreover, if the Republican Party wishes to hold the White House in the upcoming Presidential Election, the GOP can do so only by nurturing and cultivating its alliance with libertarians. Senator McCain might be just the right maverick standard bearer to accomplish this task, or he might not.

There are some common ideals that libertarians and Republicans could agree upon. However, if political compromise is to be possible, one, or both sides, cannot feel like President Eisenhower in the 1952 presidential election. That is to say, being able to compromise politically without surrendering their principles in the process. Only in this way, may it be possible for libertarians and the GOP to build a foundation from which a better, stronger and more trustful relationship is forged.

By Ryan Christiano.

http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-oe-goldberg29jan29,1,7344906.column

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4071

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/07/libertarians-and-republican-party.html

Boller, Paul F. Jr. Presidential Campaigns. Oxford University Press Inc 1984.

April showers bring May flowers. . .And as a summertime treat, maybe some tax relief

While the Democratic Party is busy battling it out for the nomination, Republican nominee is busy making plans on how to revive this downturned economy. How does he plan to do it? Reduce federal spending and cut taxes.
McCain plans to remove the federal tax on gasoline for the summer months, which currently sits at about 18.4 cents a gallon. It may not seem like much, but the blow that it would deal to the government’s budget would be in the billions. To help compensate for this cut in federal income, McCain would freeze expansion of federal offices and agencies. This seems rather unusual, that a Republican candidate would be against expansion of federal agencies when the party keeps promoting homeland security as one of their number one issues.
This however, is a clever trick. Promoting yourself as a Republican who will defend the security of the homeland and then at the same time pitch yourself as someone who will cut federal spending. McCain also said that he would cut back on congressionally pork-barrel spending saving an estimated 100 billion dollars.
I’m not too sure how I feel about cutting back on federal agency expansions, but cheaper gas. . .that does have a nice ring to it.

The Tradition of Politics

‘There’s been a lot of discussion over the last several days about how this campaign gets so negative, how we get distracted, how we exploit divisions,” Mr. Obama told voters in Reading on Sunday afternoon’ (Seeyle, Zeleny). Reports from The New York Times portrays Senator Obama as developing a more rigid tone and firing back at the Senator Clinton with the race for the democratic nomination getting close. According to The New York Times, Mr. Obama goes on record calling Mrs. Clinton; a compromised Washington Insider wherein she fires back by describing “his message of hope had given way to old-style politics and asked Democrats to take a harder look at him”
Not only are we trading negative remarks, the Election of 2008 also seems to be racking up quite a heavy spending with an estimated 20 million has the figure of expense come next Tuesday. The New York Times reports, “Mr. Obama will have spent more than $9 million on television and Mrs. Clinton will have spent almost $4 million” (Seeyle, Zeleny). There no doubt that campaigning is costly but the trail has also attracted many new and fairly young voters with “the field operations of both campaigns adding 327,000 Democrats to the voter rolls, many of them 18 to 34 years old” (Seeyle, Zeleny).
From our discussion of Susan Dunn’s historical work on the political career of Thomas Jefferson we can bear witness to similar tactics being used today that were branded by the old party machines.

Survival of the Fittest

It is seems traditional to attack your opponent as many times as possible on the campaign trail which some might deem a winning strategy. We have recognized these bitter entanglements through readings that outline the constant battle between the Federalists and Republicans for the most revered position of our land. Though candidates build their platforms around the issues they will represent, a lot of time is also spent tearing down the character of the opposing team. The federalists were accused of being too elitist while the Republicans were deemed unfit because they did not possess the aristeia that was trademark for the federalists.
It is this scramble to secure the nomination that have candidates bringing out their “attack dog” stance, feeding off any mishaps experienced by their opponents and using it rip them a part. Lately Pennsylvania has been the focus of the Election of 2008 due to their upcoming primaries, which has Senator Clinton and Senator Obama embroiled in a bitter battle of word confusion. On one hand you have Senator Clinton accusing Senator Obama of being elitist and on the other Senator Obama resurrects prior remarks of Senator Clinton which may imply the same charge. Senator Obama counteracts charges of him being closely identifiable with those of the upper echelon by referring to Senator Clinton’s 1992 remarks wherein she goes on record saying ‘“what do you expect, should I be at home baking cookies”’ ( Nagourney, Zeleny)? The game continues until the primaries helps us to decide who will seal the nomination, until then we should sit back and enjoy the stone faces, smirks and teeth clenching that will be found on many televised debates.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/us/politics/17debate.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/us/politics/17watch.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/us/politics/16text-debate.html

Elitist.. really?

After several weeks of learning about the United States past elections, it appears there is a reoccurring theme in the political fray, the negative tag of elitism. From the foundations of American Politics with the Federalist Party, we have seen that the connotation of being elitist is used as an attack against Presidential candidates under the assumption, how can one govern for the people, if they are not really of the people? From the "Bank War" battle against a moneyed aristocracy of 1832 and the heavily debated Tariffs in the 1880's, there has constantly been an issue between who a candidate represents, whether it be the rich or the poor, the "haves", and the "have nots." As seen through the recent news headlines, this is still an issue today. Obama has been tagged as Elitist in regard to a comment he made about small town voters, attacked by Hillary as "Elitist, out of touch and, frankly, patronizing." But is this long-standing issue used as a political weapon without any true basis? Dr. Drew Westen of Emory University in Atlanta believes so. Westen highlights "If you think you should be president, by definition you are an elitist, only because you believe that of the 300 million people in America, you are the best person to run it," and although simplistic, it is a valid point. It is difficult to argue that Presidential nominees are your everyday Joe or Jane Average, considering the amount of personal wealth that is committed to running as a candidate and considering that Obama and Clinton graduated from Harvard and Yale respectively. The attacks between presidential candidates Westen believes, and the result of this recent attack on Obama are part of the political game, and the skill of the politician, ""It's a little like when politicians charge politicians with being politicians. It has the same feel to it: that if it sticks, it's because a candidate hasn't handled it well." Hopefully, It is the actions of these nominees, each "elitist" in their own way, and how true their actions and words ring home with potential voters which will justify their nomination, not victory due to the degradation of another.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/16/elitism/index.html#cnnSTCText

A dollar here, a dollar there....

Is money really everything? With the filing of the financial reports on Sunday by the Democratic presidential candidates with the Federal Election Commission, show Clinton had $10.3 million in debts at the start of the month and only about $9 million cash on hand for the primaries. Obama on the other hand reported having $42 million for the primary. With Pennsylvania being a huge swing state, cash at the ready for ads, and rallies, is a huge advantage.

Hillary’s financial struggles pose yet another obstacle to her campaign, after the Bosnia incident. She seeks to end the primary season with all victories as she, trails Obama in delegates, states won and popular votes. With this much of a head start Obama’s superior fundraising and money on hand, he is sure to roll through the primaries and defeat Hillary.

The money spent in last month ensured that Obama had to undertake an expensive April campaign in Pennsylvania in order to bump Hillary. He has spent at least twice as much as Clinton and cut into her lead. As we all know, Pennsylvania votes on Tuesday and will decide where the election goes from here.

The race for the Democratic primary has been full of slander, heresy and racist remarks. Now more then ever, as the end comes nearer, do we hear brutal attacks on character and a bevy of ads and slogans. The candidate with the most money will win however they need some left, as well as more endorsements to battle the growing pot of John McCain.

Works Cited:

http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/obama-shows-strong-cash-advantage/20080421074609990001?icid=100214839x1200442588x1200016666

Campaign Spending

In a world, where television, radio, and newspaper dominate the media, a man can no longer get his message out by standing on a street corner shouting it. The decline of the party machines forces candidates seeking federal office to use the media to get exposure to the public, and for the public to get their information. Media time is expensive; this is a fact of the condition we currently live in. Thus, in order for someone to be heard and have their speech mean anything, the Supreme Court has ruled, that money is speech. But there has been many turning points to campaign financing first was the Naval Appropriations Bill of 1867 which was federal attempt to regulate campaign finance had prohibited officers and employees of the government from soliciting money from naval yard workers. Then later on came the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971 which was Repealed Corrupt Practices Act and created detailed framework for regulation of federal campaign financing of primaries, runoffs, general elections, and conventions. It required full and timely disclosure, set bonders on media advertising, established limits on contributions from candidates and their families. It had also permitted unions and corporations to solicit voluntary contributions from members, employees, and stockholders, and allowed union and corporate treasury money to be used for overhead in operating. In the 2004 U.S. presidential election, George W. Bush and John Kerry raised nearly half a billion dollars in private funding in their bids to win the White House. Total receipts for all candidates surpassed $850 million for the primary and general election. As of September 2007, to the field of hopefuls for the 2008 election has raised more than $420 million. Many feel that candidates will need to raise $500 million each in order to have a chance at winning the presidency. Dealing with such huge sums of money also brings the potential for illegalities. Historically, elections around the world have been over whelmed with scandals and corruption. This is why the Supreme Courts have set up so many Election Campaign Acts to regulating donations, spending and public funding. Throughout history we have seen dramatic changes in campaigning in the United States not only with Acts that have come about, but money that has been spent and the technology that has come with it all. What does the future hold for the Campaigning finances?

Tough on Crime Politicians

Sometimes having great crime fighting records is not enough to gain a nomination. This was seen in the election of 1940 with Thomas Dewey and in 2008 with Rudy Giuliani.

Thomas Dewey ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 1940 and gained notoriety and esteem from his past experience as a district attorney and in later years, as governor of New York. His successful background included his career as a special prosecutor in which he led prosecutions of many infamous mob members and was called a ‘gangbuster’ for breaking up organized crime. Dewey’s get-tough on crime approach appealed to Americans who wanted a no-nonsense, tough leader.

Thomas Dewey and Rudy Giuliani have extremely similar backgrounds. Giuliani held various positions within the Justice department, he had been Chief of the Narcotics unit in New York City and Associate Attorney General. Giuliani was later named US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, “where he spearheaded the effort to jail drug dealers, fight organized crime, break the web of corruption in government and prosecute white-collar criminals” (Biography). NYC.gov lists his record of 4152 convictions with only 25 reversals. His impressive background helped him win the position of Mayor of New York City in 1993 and re-election in 1997.

Despite their popularity in New York City as being gangbusters and tough on crime, they ultimately did not have enough support to gain the presidential nominations.

Sources: Biography of Rudolph Giuliani, nyc.gov.
Thomas Dewey Biography, nps.gov

-Diana Davino

The Name of the Game is Opportunism

Observing the nature of politics we can realize that though some things have changed much has remained the same. We may have political ads televised in color and candidates quickly boarding a private plane to get to a speaking engagement, and with advancement of technology we can view debates via the internet or in its televised version. The avenues that engage the public in the presidential campaigns may have progressed, however the underhanded tactics used to seal a victory still persist. All candidates are guilty of adopting certain issues or carefully concocting a character that is favorable with many factions to garner votes.
This popularity contest continues until they tangle their words and commit an obvious blunder as reported in Senator Obama’s case and a few weeks earlier in Senator Clinton’s embellishment of her foreign travels. With candidates battling constantly for the spotlight we must wonder who they are and who will they represent? With their lips they charm their audience and unite them behind a specific cause but do they believe in the words that escape those rapidly moving mouthpieces. Taking a page from Susan Dunn’s depiction of Jefferson in Jefferson’s Second Revolution we can still view politics especially the campaigning process before the presidential election as the “game of opportunism” (Dunn 183).
In an article reported by Alessandra Stanley of the NY Times, it is quite amusing to see Senator Clinton taking full advantage of Senator Obama’s obvious blunder in Pennsylvania. Senator Clinton’s uses the elitist charges against Senator Obama to solidify her character as being an advocate for the everyday man. She compared Senator Obama to the likes of John Kerry and Al Gore who are commonly referred to as candidates of the upper echelon. During the CNN hosted event in Harrisburg, PA, the question of faith was debated. Though both candidates spoke at length about their commitment to their faith; Senator Clinton again attacked Senator Obama by using references of both Gore and Kerry who although aligning themselves as men of faith were not viewed as such by large segments of the electorate . Instead they were seen as men who “did not really understand or relate to or frankly respect their ways of life”. Senator Clinton was on role in PA, many claimed she positioned herself as a saint; she was quoted as follows “I hope I will never, ever find myself being defensive or abrupt and dismissive of people who agree with me… I regret that often happens in politics, and maybe it’s because oftentimes the decision making process is so exhausting”. Ironically she never looked less tired.






http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/us/politics/14watch.html?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/13/us/politics/13campaign.html?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/12/us/politics/12campaign.html?

McCain vs. Obama-Presidential Preview?

Today, Monday, one of the first dual party debates occurred between Obama and McCain. The topic of the debate centered on which candidate could relate more to the American public. The debate happened over a newspaper campaign.
Obama has been criticized by Americans for calling them out on their unhappiness with the economic status, calling them “bitter.” He claims that when workers struggle, they turn to guns and religion in order to alleviate their problems and consequently lash out at others who are better off. (Obama later tried to recant these harsh words, saying he himself is religiously observant and also a supporter of firearms.) While he is under fire, he criticizes the Republicans for not being sympathetic or caring enough about the economic situation to have the government help out. He claims that it only worsens the economic situation and also decreases public support. He attacked McCain for siding with President Bush in his tax cuts at the beginning of the decade and gave harsh words about him following Bush’s legacy too closely.
McCain takes a higher road in the debate, acknowledging Obamas comments and retaliating slightly less. He claims that Obama’s comments were of the elitist nature. McCain says that although he feels that government is important in people’s personal lives, the economic status is not the place for intervention and should assist as little as possible.
Clinton on the other hand, did not take part in the debate, but tried to turn Obama’s remarks back on him, calming that he would not be a President of the people because he is a snob.
The real question is, is this a precursor to future Presidential debates? Will it be Obama vs. McCain 2008, with the winner becoming President of the United States? If this debate shows anything, it will be a definite interesting campaign!

Is the McCain campaign Constitutional?

As the race for the White House wages on, a little factoid often goes over looked. This is the fact that some may claim that the McCain candidacy is not Constitutional. The reason for this is that John McCain was not born in the Continental United States. McCain was actually born on a U.S. naval base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, where his father was stationed. Unlike others who are not eligible to run like California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, born in Austria, or Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, born in Canada, McCain was born in a U.S. territory at the time of his birth. His parents were both U.S. citizens so he was legally born as a natural born citizen in the United States. So many feel that as a result of that, he is eligible to run for president under Article II Section I of the U.S. Constitution. However, as we all know in politics, there are disbelievers, and so John McCain in 2000 as well as 2008 hired lawyers in order to put the eligibility issue aside during his busy campaign for the presidency. They have concluded that he is indeed a natural born citizen, and is indeed eligible to become president.

It is also interesting to note that if this race is an Obama-McCain match up, it would make the first time that both major party candidates were not born in the continental United States as Barack Obama was born and raised in the state of Hawaii.

This reminds me of some of our lectures in class of Alexander Hamilton. While he may have wanted to run for president, many question whether he was eligible as he was born in the West Indies, which was not part of the colonies at the time of the Revolution.

Sites I received info from:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html#section1

http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=H000101

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23841816/

candidate confidence

Political cartoons say a lot! These seem to sum up the elections we're looking at - the 2008 campaign and FDR's success.

Anything but this!

The Great Depression and the 1929 stock market crash were the major concerns of the 1932 election. According to Presidential Campaigns author, Paul F. Boller, Jr., “by 1932, millions of people were damning Hoover and the Republican Party” (p. 232), and the Democrats would have a certain victory. It wasn’t so much Franklin D. Roosevelt’s new policies were convincing to the public – in fact, the opposition tried to scare the public against them – it was more that the people were so discontent with the present situation that they were voting against what wasn’t working. The New Deal “was still rather vague in FDR’s mind” (p.236), but at that point, the public was desperate for change. Considering that people probably had a limited understanding of FDR’s programs and plans, their votes were against Hoover and the Republicans. In the 1932 election, FDR won 42 out of 48 states.

In 2008, Bushes approval rating has been in the low 30% range, with a previous low in July of 2007 of 29%, and a present low of 28% based on a Gallup Poll conducted between April 6th, and April 9th 2008. The American people are frustrated by the drawn out Iraq war, and the Democrats are using this opportunity to campaign for change. Both Clinton and Obama want to focus on how they are different than the president and how their policies would differ from the current administration. In the early Republican primaries, the candidates tried to distance themselves from Bush and each pointed out how they are/ would be different. Obama made his campaign based on the message of change, and this message successfully and quickly propelled him in popularity. He is picking up much of the Liberal and young vote who are likely the most discontent with the current administration.

American voter turnout has historically been low, despite the fact that Americans generally consider themselves to be politically involved. This has many factors, but it is important to note that there is a close relation between voter registration figures and election day voting. In the U.S., electoral participation is a two step process: a person must first register to vote before they may vote in an election. Although the general conditions on who can vote are uniform, states have their own registration process. States can have different deadlines for voter registration, however, in most states, a person must register at least 30 days before an election. Since low voter turnout is dependent on low voter registration, the federal government, as well as local governments, have addressed issues of voter registration. Two examples of federal laws to improve the voter registration process are: the National Voter Registration Act (1993) and the Help America Vote Act (2002). In 2004, the National Mail Voter Registration Form was handled by the newly formed Election Assistance Commission. Although it is very easy, many people are still not registered to vote. Social, political and religious groups have all made efforts to increase voter registration and, in turn, election day voting.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/106426/Bush-Job-Approval-28-Lowest-Adminstration.aspx
http://www.rockthevote.com/rtv_register_inc.php?ms=googlevr9
http://www.fec.gov/votregis/vr.shtml
http://declareyourself.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14

Cuz I like to party

The 1840 election was historical in that it marks the highest turn out of eligible voters voting. With over 80% voting its easy to assume that people of all ages were at the polls. At the same time, the election of 1840 was different in that it showcased heavy drinking and partying as hard cider became the staple in the election. The election was more about parade bbq’s and having fun than it was about the issues and people joined in, in record numbers. This election gave us the term “keep the ball rollin” as Harrison supporters would literally roll giants balls down the street, I would imagine that the hard cider played a role in the discovery of this pass time. I would also find it hard to believe that anyone over thirty years of age came up with the idea. In the end, the party that partied the hardiest won the election with a Whig and Harrison victory.
It has become rare in the current era for election turnout to reach much over 60% and with that America has seen a collectively apathetic attitude among young voters when it comes to elections. This year seems to be different, politico.com news reports that, “By recent historical standards, youth turnout is having a banner year. In every primary or caucus so far the youth turnout percentage has been the same or — almost always — greater than it was four or eight years ago.”http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8418.html. Also, sites meant to rally the youth vote are popping up every where including Declareyourself.com, which in one article illustrates the youth attitude, “Nina Fuentes, 21, explained her draw to the presidential process: "They say young people are apathetic. Well, he's bringing us into the process. He's offering inspiration and hope that we can make a difference. . . . What I like is that his success is coming from grass roots, from the bottom up“." With the youth vote, comes the reintroduction of the party atmosphere into politics. I can’t find the article but I read on CNN that this primary season has broke the records for donuts given out, which is the best you can hope for since alcohol is no longer provided by the parties. Also, rallies around the country, particularly for Obama have seen enthusiastic crowds, including young Americans, that seem to be enjoying themselves more than usual.
Who knows whether the party-party which seems to be camp Obama at this point will actually win, or what influence the youth vote will have on who becomes our president. But if this election is anything like 1840 then we should see a big turnout among not only young Americans but all voters as a whole.

............Don't forget about those Congressional races!

While everyone this year keeps talking about the hot 2008 Presidential race, and whose going to win, there are many many more elections that are going on at the same time this Election Day. There are elections on town levels, state legislatures, governorships, U.S. Senate Seats and U.S. House seats. All of these are generally considered down ballot races, as the main election this year is the presidential election between McCain versus Obama or Clinton. But, it is extremely vital for each party to win seats in the U.S. Congress as a newly elected president needs members of his own party to have a majority to get his or her agenda through. With a divided government, it is really hard or even impossible for a President to get his or her agenda through Congress without having his or her party with a majority in Congress (A prime example of this it the bitter years we saw in the late 1990's with Bill Clinton, a Democrat, and the Republican controlled Congress. It was very hard for Clinton to get his agenda through Congress).

This year, for the 2008 election, the Democrats go into the election with majorities in the House and Senate. If Clinton or Obama were to win the White House, then they would need a Democratic controlled Congress to get their agenda through with as little changes to it as possible. If McCain wins, then he is hoping for the Republicans to take back Congress, so he can get his agenda through. As of right now, the prospects look really good for the Democrats to not only maintain their majorities, but to gain a significant amount of seats based on a number of reasons. One reason is the number of open seats in each house there are that were once held by Republicans. There are 6 open seats in the Senate and over 20 seats in the House. Also, the heads (Chuck Schumer (NY) for the Senate, Chris Van Hollen (MD) for the House) of the Democratic Congressional and Senate Campaign Committee (which are responsible for electing Democrats to the each body of Congress respectively) has a much more cash on hand to spend for Congressional races then the Republican Campaign Committees have on hand. The exact number is about $30 million for the Democrats and $3 million for the Republicans. This means the Democrats will be able to spend much more money on seats that could be vulnerable and the Republicans would be struggling to just play defense in some seats that are vulnerable. All in all, the Congressional races are very important to who ever wins the presidency as to get their agenda through Congress.

The implications of the Congressional races and the Presidential election of this year reminds me of numerous elections in the past. One such race was back in 1800, when Jefferson and the Republicans beat the Federalists in the presidential and Congressional races. As a result, Jefferson was more easily able to get his agenda through the Congress then if the Federalists were the party in power in Congress. Another election is the 1928 election, when Hoover and the Republican party swept into power with sweeping victories in the House and Presidency. As a result, these important Congressional races paved the way for these presidents to more easily get their agenda passed through Congress. This could be the case this year, depending on which party wins the Presidency and Congress respectively.

Websites that I obtained the information from:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/08/870099.aspx
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Comparison/Maps/Apr06.html
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/08/dccc-chair-warns-negative-presidential-race-could-do-damage/

Wedge Issues 1800 and 2008 (Group B post 7)

Political Issues which divide campaigns are most commonly known as Wedge Issues. Wedge Issues most often occur within one political party (resulting in party divisions) but in rare cases they can signify an issue difference between two opposing parties. In the election of 1800 the wedge Issue seemed to be Slavery. The Slavery issue in 1800 divided the Republican Party, in that it pitted Republican leaders like Thomas Jefferson (who believed that a little Rebellion was good every once and a while) against Republicans who believed that the rightful order of the land must be preserved and slave uprising like Gabriel Prosser’s must be squashed. Another Wedge Issue in 1800 occurred on the part of the Federalist Party. A portion of the Federalist Party in 1800 wanted to go war with France, for a variety of reasons, but their Federalist leader at the time President John Adams was adamantly opposed to any war with France. This Wedge Issue of war pitted (coupled with other things) Federalist leaders like John Adams against Federalist Leaders like Alexander Hamilton. In 2008 parallels can be drawn as far as party divisions based on wedge issues. The wedge issue in 2008 for the Republican Party seems to be Immigration. During the primary stages of the campaign (where there were several candidates vying for the nomination) candidates like Rudy Giuliani advocated for bans against drivers licenses for illegal immigrates, http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/blog/2007/11/immigration_the_wedge_issue_of.htmlwhere John McCain advocates for temporary worker Programs http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/12/02/mccain_immigration_views_have_hurt_him/8174/. Wedge Issues can be found across party lines as well with the Democrats advocating for a troop withdraw from Iraq, and a majority of Republican’s advocating a “maintain the course attitude”. As previously mentioned wedge issues have divided political campaigns for over 200 years, and will continue to do so for the next 200.

Electoral Expedience vs. Ideological Purity (Group B)

Electoral Expedience v. Ideological Purity is an issue political parties have been dealing with during primary season since as early as 1800. The republican and the Democratic parties, when choosing a candidate to run in general election must decide whether or not they want to go with the candidate who will perform well in the election, or the candidate which maintains the parties’ respective ideals. The most notable elections in which this Electoral Expedience v. Ideological Purity has occurred is the elections of 1912, 2004 and 2008. In the election of 1912 two Republican candidates were pitted against each other, Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft. Republican leaders had to decide whether or not to run a candidate who was conservative on party issues (Taft) or a candidate who they knew would do well in the General Election and garner the most electoral votes (Theodore Roosevelt). The old guard Republicans of this election decided to Run Taft as their candidate because he promoted party issues, and passed over Roosevelt because he seemed to be promoting more Progressive ideals, than Republican ones. The result of the Republican parties failure to pick Roosevelt as their candidate was the formation of the Progressive party in 1912 (Presidential Campaigns). In the 2004 election the choice of John Kerry over Howard Dean seemed to be primarily because of Kerry’s electoral Expedience “But supporting a candidate because he is “electable” is a coolly calculated and ephemeral political commitment. Any passion for Kerry, for example, seems to come less for the man himself than that he represents a vehicle to defeat Bush” (Moberg) http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/693/. Most political analyst felt during that during the 2004 campaign Dean represented more of the party ideals, but Kerry possessed the electability quality they were looking for. In 2008 the same can be seen in the Republican Party with Mike Huckabee and John McCain. A number of GOP analyst agreed that Huckabee embodied a large number of the Republican Ideals, they were looking for in a candidate but unlike McCain he had a very low potential for doing well in the polls. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/8003.html
In 1912, 2004, and 2008 (and many other elections) the choice of which candidate to run came down to whom the party believed would do well in the polls, which in some cases ended up being the candidate that wasn’t the strongest believer in the parties ideals.

Third Term President

“McCain appears intent on abandoning some of his most deeply cherished personal values, including his commitment to secular values and distaste for religious bigotry, in favor of catering to the great W. coalition of white evangelicals and security-obsessed conservatives. Like Bush, his mantras are war and belligerence abroad, and at home, fear-mongering, “free trade,” lower taxes on the wealthy, and “job training” for the increasingly miserable middle classes. If he is elected, it will be “Groundhog Day,” the Bill Murray film about a character doomed to live through the same day over and over again. It will be the last eight years that we will suffer through again under a President McCain. This quote taken from an article entitled McCain rushes for Bush’s third term, published in several notable magazines, describes the idea that some political analyst share regarding McCain and his potential election to the White house, primarily how it could be seen as a third term for George Bush. The author of the article Juan Cole mentions that with one trip to the white house, and a crucial “endorsement: by President George Bush, John McCain seems to be abandoning his core belief system (as seen in 2000 campaign), In order to realign himself with the current Republican administration, and garner support among those faithful Republicans who love Bush. Cole also mentions in the article, that in 2000 McCain denounced Evangalicist “as agents of intolerance” “but now he is acting as Bush did then, and welcoming them and their endorsements with open arms. Finally the article states that McCain is sticking to the same strategy that Bush did in 2004, by promoting security against a week democratic candidate. The article concludes by stating that a Third Term for Bush can be seen in a McCain presidency, by McCain’s decision to adopt similar and in some cases the same foreign and domestic polices as President Bush. http://moderate.wordpress.com/2008/03/12/john-mccain-runs-for-george-bushs-third-term/
This idea of presidential candidates being an extension of the predecessors is a common theme within historical presidential campaigns, one of those campaigns being the election of 1908. In this election William Howard Taft and his campaign was criticized for being too closely connected to the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt. The Presidential Campaigns book by Paul F. Boller states that during the election of 1908 “Taft with T.R. at his elbow took an advanced position of many issues…with T.R.’s coaching he gradually improved and even began enjoying the hustings” (pg 179). Under T.R’s guidance Taft’s campaign gained momentum and he was able to assume the presidency (Most people believe because he adopted most of TR’s policies) Taft’s presidency according to most historians is T.R. third term in office...
A presidential candidate being an extension of their predecessors is not a new issue within American politics. The idea of incumbents assuming a “third term” in their party’s next choice, will continue to be an issue as long as there are Presidential Campaigns in the United States.

Links Between 2008 and 1904

There are a number of links between the presidential election of 1904 and 2008. McCain and Roosevelt each are/were questioned based on issues outside the platform issues of the campaign. For Roosevelt the question was if he was actually sane or not. For McCain the question is of his age (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/us/politics/24mccain.html). Roosevelt's own party was afraid that something would happen to him or he would do something really crazy to bring down his chances of getting elected. With McCain's age there are questions from both sides of the political spectrum if he is able to lead in his old age. It also questions who his Vice Presidential candidate might be. The candidate must be younger and able to lead at a moments notice.


On the Democrats side of the ticket Obama and Clinton with their call for change can be seen much like the anti-corruption candidates like Roosevelt was (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/01/barackobama.uselections2008). There have been questions of the decisions and motives of the Bush Administration. Also there was a large amount of candidates running in the 2008 election because in 2004 not many ran because of Bush running for re-election. In 1904 not many Democrats ran either. It seems that all cycles come back around.


-Andrew Stoltzfus

Da Da Daa! It's Underdog!

In the past, one of the most important points in a primary election was the Iowa caucus. The key in Iowa was to present yourself as the underdog and still come out on top. Doing better than expected gave you access to new contributors, renewed the confidence of your current contributors, and increased your media coverage. For the most part, this still holds true for this year’s primaries. However, thanks to the revamped early primaries, there is a new underdog state, Pennsylvania.
As covered by CNN on April 2, 2008, both Obama and Clinton are jockeying for the underdog position. Clinton, looking at the whole picture, is the apparent underdog for the country. It is Obama though, who holds the underdog title in the state of Pennsylvania. As the voting day draws closer, Obama’s underdog status has become less and less noticeable as his support in the polls continues to grow.
Still, both candidates fight for their title as the Rocky Balboa. So much so, has Clinton pitched herself as the Rocky Balboa of the Democratic primaries, that if you right now were to Google “Rocky Balboa” the first result at the top of the page is a blog spot on Forbes.com discussing Hillary Clinton and her selling herself as the great, hero boxer.
It does seem though, that Clinton has a lot more to lose if she were to lose Pennsylvania, given her already fleeting hopes at winning the nomination. If she can successfully sell herself as the underdog and pull out a ‘W’, she might win back some strong support. On the other hand, if Obama comes away with the win, the remaining primaries will painful ones for the Clinton team.

If Nomination Eludes Her, Clinton Could Pull A “Perot”. Team B.

If the smoke clears from the conflagration ignited by the ferocity of the Democratic presidential primary season; and Senator Obama is left standing as the Democratic presidential nominee, then Senator Clinton could launch an Independent presidential campaign like billionaire Ross Perot in the 1992 Presidential election.

In the event that Senator Clinton is unable to persuade the super delegates that she is more electable than her opponent, then her chances become slim in being able to grasp the brass ring. The nomination would be out of reach for her, but not necessarily the keys to The White House.

The time might come when it becomes clear that the feud between Clinton and Obama has fractured the Democratic Party so very badly, that the Senator from New York might be able to persuade her supporters, who may feel bitter and disenfranchised, to support her as an Independent presidential candidate. Such inter-Party bitterness might create a unique opportunity in U.S. presidential elections; a successful bid by a candidate outside of the dualopoly.

Such a candidate would have to posses certain attributes. This candidate would have to have the ability to gain the support of Independents, moderates, and centrists. Reserves of vast financial resources would also be a prerequisite. This candidate would have to have sufficient name recognition and an appeal that are equal to the nominees. The candidate would need to emphasis change, leadership, and a certain level of gravitas that would convince individuals to sway away from the comforting caress of the Republicans and Democrats.

Senator Hillary Clinton received support from Liberal Republicans, Democrats, moderates, independents and centrists alike in her bids for the U.S. Senate. The former First Lady has a personal fortune estimated well into the millions of dollars resulting from her husband’s speaking engagements and her well -received book. The Senator is known around the world thanks to her time in The White House alongside her President-husband; therefore, she possesses name recognition in spades. She has a larger than life persona that could persuade party loyalists to break away and support an Independent bid. As Senator in a state that is the media capital of the world, Senator Clinton knows how to utilize the media to disseminate his message.

Before you dismiss the idea out of hand, please recall the presidential election of 1992, when a charismatic Texas billionaire named Ross Perot capitalized on the frustration that the American people were feeling with the two major parties and how they conduct themselves. As Mr. Paul F. Boller Jr. reminds us in “Presidential Campaigns”:


On election day, in the largest voter turnout since 1960, Governor Clinton won the election with 43 percent of the popular votes to Bush’s 38 percent and Perot’s 19 percent. His electoral victory was more impressive: 370 votes to Bush’s 168. Perot won no electoral votes, but his share of the popular votes was the largest for an Independent candidate since Theodore Roosevelt, running as a Progressive, took 27 percent of the popular votes in 1912.

Senator Clinton could win electoral votes in states such as New York, Arkansas, and other states that contain Democrats and Independents dissatisfied with Senator Obama.

With an Independent run, Senator Clinton could reach across ideological boundaries and be an attractive candidate to an electorate disgruntled and dissatisfied with the elephants and the jackasses.

Senator Clinton should play to win the game she’s in right now, but if she’s ultimately forced to cash in her chips in the Democratic Party primary, perhaps the former First Lady should roll the dice and see what happens. Ross Perot gambled, and almost changed history.

Boller, Paul F. Jr. Presidential Campaigns. Oxford University Press Inc 1984.

Ryan Christiano.

Party Switching Group B Post 1

An article in the associated press on Tuesday April 1st, discusses in great detail the current trend in American politics of party switching. This trend has become somewhat of an issue in the 2008 race for the white house. Party switching involves members of one party voting for a primary candidate of another party, in order to have the person they feel would loose to their candidate, be the person nominated. For example there currently are members of the Republican Party engaging in party switching, specifically voting for Hillary Clinton, in order to have her be the democratic nominee. They are party switching because they feel that Hillary has a better chance of loosing to John McCain than Barack Obama. The article also goes into great detail regarding the influential roles that radio host like Victoria Taft and Rush Limbaugh have played in this primary season (keep in mind that both are staunch Republicans). The previously mentioned radio personalities have been urging members of their parties to vote for Hillary in the democratic primaries as well, because they feel that she will have a better chance of loosing against John McCain. This party switching has resulted in a dramatic increase in the number of democratic voters registered in the presidential primaries that have yet to occur. The author of the article does mention that this party switching is minimized in states where there are closed primaries and voters cannot just vote for whomever they want primarly because they are registered in that state for one party or another. I think this article is extremely important because it highlights a trend that could dictate who the presidential nominee is for the Democratic Party will be. This trend is also important because it solidifies the idea that when people recognize that a political leader or entity can be prove to be a legitimate threat to a party or an ideal, they must come up with a way in which to cast them aside.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j-yFl91SZQSuxY6iahMsbW_3FCHAD8VP7GEG0

Group A: Repeating the Past our setting a new precedent...

Sometimes the past can foreshadow the future so it comes as no surprise that political analysts are already speculating about the possible damage that can be caused by internal party disputes. Many worry that the ongoing competition between democratic presidential candidates may hurt their party’s chances of winning the election come November. According to popular belief negative disputes between two candidates of the same political party often leave voters liking one candidate and hating the other, creating a dilemma at the polls. For if a voter favors one candidate and he/she is not chosen as the presidential nominee they tend to vote against their party by casting a ballot for the other side rather than the disliked candidate.
According to an article reported by Katherine Q. Seelye and Jane Bosman in The New York Times, past elections has developed a trend of costing parties the election if contenders representing the same side continue to exhaust their energies through negative confrontations with other candidates of their respective party. We can start with the election of 1980 which depicts the phenomenon of disunity within parties leading to a depletion of supporters and eventually losing the presidency- and continue from there.

“President Jimmy Cater and Senator Edward M. Kennedy had been sharp adversaries with a bad history, and in the 1980 presidential campaign they let it bleed into a bitter nomination fight. The Carter administration challenged Mr. Kennedy’s patriotism and refused to debate, while Mr. Kennedy dragged out their fight for nine months, all the way to the Democratic convention. A weakened Mr. Carter prevailed and won the nomination, but he went on to lose in November”
“Equally difficult was the fight in the election of 1964 on the Republican side. The relationship between Barry Goldwater and Nelson Rockefeller was so antagonistic that Mr. Rockefeller was booed off the convention stage. Lyndon B. Johnson went on to beat Mr. Goldwater in a landslide” (Bosman, Seelyee, Carrying Primary Scars Into the General Election) .


There are many issued broiling here, not only are we focused on the day to day interaction of Senator Clinton and Senator Obama but it must also be recognized that the Republicans are closely monitoring their opponents– maybe contemplating a similar strategy to the one that caused Blaine his candidacy in 1884- to develop future attacks on their opponents position. The Republicans are not asleep,” said Paul Kirk, who was chairman of the Democratic Party from 1985 to 1989 and was the political director for Mr. Kennedy in 1980. “They’ll use all that stuff for cannon fodder.”
Though it may still be too early to predict how the upcoming election will play out, I am sure the democrats are highly aware of previous mishaps and once interactions between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama do not escalate into a distasteful contest, the democrats should have no problems in turning out the vote in November; besides there is nothing wrong with a little healthy competition.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/us/politics/01fight.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/us/politics/01campaign.html