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/