Tea Time with the Democrats: Zingers and One-liners

Thursday’s debate seemed to be more of a friendly chat over a cup of tea than a head to head battle for the final debate between the two front-runners, Obama and Clinton. Both behaved like old college buddies, not only agreeing with one another at certain points, but somehow supporting one another – especially with the “Clinton-Obama Obama-Clinton ticket” question. Although a very real possibility (i.e. Kennedy/Johnson), clearly neither wants to let their supporters loose. Hillary had to face a grueling “Clinton dynasty” question – which she walked out of like a champ. Her one-liner that “it did take a Clinton to clean after the first Bush, I think it’ll take another Clinton to clean after the second one” was an ingenious response.
On the other hand, Obama had his own moments of glory with his zingers about how “the great talk express lost its wheels” and how he doesn’t think “the Republicans are going to be in a real strong position to argue fiscal responsibility, when they have added $4 trillion or $5 trillion worth of national debt.” It’s clear that both candidates are banking on their hot ticket race – at this point it has become a Democrat v Republican debate. McCain was mentioned at least five times or so by both candidates – painting him as the guy on the losing team. With Super Tuesday right around the corner, it will be interesting to see how Thursday’s tea party will affect voters at the polls.


Nadia S.

Bill Clinton "Tones it Down"

In a recent post I suggested that it seems that Hillary and Bill are running as a team. Bill has been very involved in the campaign, defending Hillary and attacking Obama; however, in a recent article, Hillary on Bill: 'This Is My Campaign,' it seems that Hillary may have asked Bill to “tone it down” a little. ABC news asked Hillary if she asked Bill to back off recently and she didn’t deny it. The article discusses that reporters covering Bill have noticed him being much more passive and subtle in the past few days. He seems to be doing his best to focus on his wife’s candidacy and according to the article, “that’s led some to speculate that Clinton, who was acting as his wife’s chief attack dog—has been muzzled.” I think that Hillary began to fear that she might be criticized for having Bill so heavily involved with her campaign, possibly overshadowing the fact that it is her campaign and not her husband’s. She recently told ABC news that “…this is my campaign. It’s about my candidacy.” I think she is trying to keep things focused on herself as opposed to her husband and his former presidency. Obama has even suggested that we do not need a flashback to the past, providing George Bush as an example of a flashback to when his father was in office. I think that Hillary is trying to prevent criticizes such as this one and is trying as best she can to make this about her and only her, as opposed to heavily involving Bill Clinton in the issues.

The Dark Side Of "The High Road"

Wednesday, Obama used Hilary Clinton's continued use of husband's image of a bridge to the future against her. He said that another Clinton presidency would be a step back to the past: "I know it is tempting — after another presidency by a man named George Bush — to simply turn back the clock, and to build a bridge back to the 20th century ... It's not enough to say you'll be ready from Day One — you have to be right from Day One." Hilary often claims she's better prepared to govern with her husband, who pledged during his own presidency to build a bridge to the 21st century.

"That certainly sounds audacious, but not hopeful," said Clinton, in a play on the title of Obama's book, "The Audacity of Hope." "It's not hopeful and it's not what we should be talking about in this campaign. I would certainly, through you, hope we could get back to talking about the issues, drawing the contrasts that are based in fact that have a connection to the American people," Clinton said.

She then assured voters that she would take "The High Road" in these matters. I assume that means she will continue to use just as much word play to get in a smiling insult ever time her abilities are questioned rather than disputing the claims made against her.

Votes Will Speak for Themselves

And then there were two. John Edwards' departure from the primaries leaves the race for the Presidential nomination down to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. In the narrow contest between the two, securing Edwards votes could provide a valuable advantage in the polls. Political analysts believe that Edwards supporters will lean towards Obama, due to their similar political viewpoints. However, both candidates have been trying to reach out to Edwards and know how powerful his endorsement could be.

Yet there are other issues that could factor into who gets the votes. As much as people, especially Obama, have tried to stray away from race, the issue has been unavoidable. Much of Obama's South Carolina victory was attributed to large volumes of Black voters, but polls show he won across all demographics, including gender, except for seniors over 65 and Whites 30 and above. Although he had nowhere near as much success in Florida, my point is that he still has a universal appeal.

Tellingly, the ONLY demographic in which Edwards won was among Whites 30 and above (he tied the 60+ers with Clinton.) Obama was last in those categories.

I am nowhere near a political scientist so I know I could be simplifying this: looking at the numbers alone, we could believe that a majority of White voters would vote for Clinton because she came in second in that category (and has beat Obama in that demographic throughout the primaries). However, ideal-wise, Edwards voters parallel more closely to Obama. Where will the Edwards votes go?

In a situation like this, I believe media coverage and framing will certainly play a role for these undecided voters. If the media focuses on ideals, viewpoints, and politics, I believe that voters may be more inclined to vote for the candidate they most closely align with. However, if this becomes a campaign about race (which I do not think it has too much save for the Martin Luther King comment), the results could turn out much differently.

Ultimately, the votes will speak for themselves.

GOP Debate Open Thread

How will McCain's recent surge of momentum play out in the debate tonight? Will the other candidates collectively go after him? Use this thread to add your comments and reactions. More as the debate progresses.

The Not Vote---the decider??

Since last night's class, I have done a lot of thinking about Joey's comment about who people are not voting for. While this concept should not have an influence in people voting preferences, it seems that not everyone in America votes based on merit. With Edwards leaving the race, this idea, in which people will vote for a candidate because they do not want to vote for the other candidate for superficial reasons of gender or race, receives new light. For the first time in the history of our country, the Democratic Presidential nominee will be a member of a minority group in our country. A female has as real shot at being President, and an African-American has a real shot at being President. It has been said that a majority of Edwards' votes has been because he is not Clinton. It is important to point out that he is also not Obama. So who will these votes go to on Super Tuesday and the rest of the primaries? The answer, presumably is a combination of sorts. Those who preferred Edwards for his positions on politics will have give their support to whichever candidate they align with better at this point. And, those who voted for Edwards for superficial reasons now have the decision to make about which Joey was talking. Let's hope that there are more people in the based on merit boat than the superficial one. It is amazing that this race still continues to get more interesting every day.

Edwards is out. Who benefits?

This morning Democratic Presidential Candidate John Edwards dropped out of the race. Edwards, who failed to win a primary and finished third in his home state of South Carolina never really gained much traction. The real question is, where do his votes go?
Some argue that Edwards represented the anti-Hillary vote and therefore a lot of his votes will go to Obama. Others believe that Edwards was splitting the white votes with Clinton and with him out, Hillary picks up a solid block of votes. His votes will probably split between those two (though I'm sure that pollsters could breakdown by state and Congressional district what this does) and therefore they become moot.
If this race remains undecided by the convention an Edwards endorsement could be the deciding facotr in the race. Thus making him the kingmaker for the Democrats. If Edwards endorses the eventual winner he will probably be the next Attorney General.
The Politico has a good port-mortem of the Edwards campaign.

A Victory for Clinton?

Clinton's overwhelming defeat of Obama by receiving 50% of the vote compared to his 33% in Florida's primary last night, but can you count that as a victory if there are no delegates at stake? Granted I am no genius when it comes to politics, but I do know that throughout the primaries one of the main goals is to collect delegates, 2,025 in fact to capture the the nomination. With Florida being stripped of their delegates for wanting to move up their primary, in my opinion, this victory really does not count as a victory.

It is conceivable that Clinton was attempting to slow down the Obama campaign after a solid victory in South Carolina, but promoting a victory in a state where the other candidates did not spend time or money in seems to me that she may be getting desperate. I also have to return to the Michigan primary, where again no delegates were rewarded, and yet Clinton's name was the only one on the ballot. In all fairness, she will receive the media coverage of the fact that she did win by a large margin in Florida, and she is probably hoping that this "victory" will help her secure more delegates on Tuesday's primaries, but in my opinion I see this as her struggling to retain delegates and therefore is overjoyed when she wins a state that does not increase her chances of obtaining the nomination.

On a side note, it will be interesting to watch the debate on Thursday with Edwards dropping out. I have a feeling that this debate is going to be an even worse cat-fight than the previous one.

Goodbye Rudy

While we patiently wait for the results from today's republican primary in Florida, the winner is yet unnamed, but we can say with certainty that it will not be Rudy Giuliani. Despite his dominance of the polls throughout last year, everyone expected the Giuliani candidacy to implode at some point, being rather out of touch with the socially conservative bent of the republican primary voters, and the fact that he was able to endure this long still has been remarkable. What churchgoing republican primary voter would want this man to lead the nation:

Now I personally give the republicans credit for toying with a Giuliani nomination for such a long time. However, in light of his tenure in New York adopting a cutthroat, ruthless, and dominating tenor, I will be happy to see the man my italian grandfather labels as the only "bad" italian forcefully eviscerated from the spotlight.

Weekend Retreat Revelation

This past weekend I drove down the coast to spend the weekend with about 20 other College Republicans. As most political junkies would, we were watching Senator Obama's victory speech in South Carolina Saturday night. Even though there weren't any Obama supporters in the room, we were all in awe of his charisma and speaking skills. He could have said anything that night and the crowd around him would have eaten it up.

Plus, any time a Clinton loses an election, it warms College Republican hearts.

After Obama’s speech ended, two discussions began amongst us. The first dealt with the obvious trouble Republicans will be in if Obama becomes the Democratic nominee. For someone as young and inexperienced as Senator Obama to have catapulted into superstar status in such a short amount of time is not unheard of in the political world. However, Obama is a scary thought to Republicans, as one might imagine. Hopefully, it will scare Republicans into uniting behind whichever candidate wins our own party’s nomination.

That brings us to the second conversation.

Obama, via his speech, made quite an impression on about a quarter of the people in the room who began insisting that they would choose Obama over whichever Republican candidate they absolutely despise. There are clearly deep divides within the Republican Party over whom to nominate, and there were clearly deep divides within this small group of College Republicans, who are friendly and from the same state and who have worked together many times in the past. This fact says something about where the Republican Party is going.

The lesson I pulled away from this weekend’s retreat is this: if Republicans want a real chance at victory this year, we are going to have to pull together behind whoever wins our party’s nomination and only then can we philosophically re-define what it means to be a Republican.

Democratic Divisions

I ended up watching the State of the Union address live last night. Comments about the speech aside, I thought one of the most interesting moments was the awkward situation between Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, and Barak Obama. Clinton went to welcome Ted Kennedy, an inevitable awkward situation given Kennedy's recent declaration in support of Obama. Obama, standing sort of between the two, awkwardly turned away, at least that's how it appeared in the shot captured by many cameras. While Obama and his advisors have downplayed that he was intentionally trying to ignore Hillary, I still think the moment raises some interesting points for the larger election:
First, there's no doubt the election has gotten extremely hostile recently, particularly on the Democratic side. It will be interested to see how this plays out both in voters response (such as those in South Carolina saying they switched to Obama at the last minute due to massive negative campaigning from the Clintons) and in how Obama will be able to toe the line of trying to be "above politics" yet not looking too weak in the face of the attacks.
Second, will the primaries have a larger impact upon the Democratic party as a whole. Historically, as mentioned on depth on the Daily Show last night, Democrats have a canny ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Will this massive negative campainging create larger divisions within the democratic party that will undermine their ability to win the election?

This article helped contribute to this post:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/01/for-obama-clint.html




http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/01/for-obama-clint.html

Kennedy v. Clinton

Monday marked a shift in the discussion within the democratic party. Instead of people talking about Clinton and Obama, they began to talk about Clinton, Kennedy, and which prominent political family would control the future vision of the party.
For nearly five decades it has been the Kennedy's who have been America's first family. Since his assassination, President Kennedy has been the standard bearer for all potential candidates in terms of strength and vision. Even Bill Clinton, head of America's newest political family, was eager to roll out a picture of himself shaking the President's hand as a teenager.
Now, with the endorsement of Obama by both Ted and Caroline Kennedy, two of the greatest American political families will face off for control of the party. Who's vision will endure? Does the Kennedy endorsement of Obama mean an end to the Clinton legacy, or is it a desperate attempt by the old torchbearer to stay relevant? These are just a few of the questions being asked.
I believe this is a fight that the Clintons cannot and will not win. Hillary's message of returning to the success of a Clinton presidency has no resonance when pitted against the possible return to a Kennedy presidency. With African-Americans and Latinos owing a great deal of gratitude to the Kennedy family, and white men avoiding Clinton like the plague, Hillary finds herself in a tough position. White women will not be enough to secure her the nomination.
So, the Clintons will no doubt attempt to further divide the electorate along any lines they can in order to win. It is my hope and my belief, however, that America will not stand for politics as usual. Instead, they will look to Obama for the politics of past. They will reject the division of one era and replace it with the hope and inspiration of another. The Kennedy dream will endure.

Which Candidate is Better for "Brand America"?

Newspaper columnists in Berlin are calling Obama the “new John F Kennedy.”

France views a democratic victory as the end of a neo-conservative foreign policy agenda.

America’s Asian trading partners worry that the Democrats will have stricter environmental regulations.

Senegal hopes that next president will be more open to immigration and less hostile to Islam.

These and more are associations that many countries have with the presidential candidates and the democratic process in general, as reported in a recent New York Times article. In India and Japan, for example, there is a belief that the process will restore American honor and inspire hope. Others, such as Venezuela and the Philippines, believe there will be no difference.

Simon Anholt, author of Brand America, argues in his Place Blog that the better candidate has little to do with race, gender, or even politics, and more to do with how masculine or feminine the candidate is. He suggests that Obama has some feminine characteristics, "culturally sensitive, caring, gentle, and considerate," while Clinton is "driven, forceful and aggressive," and that the "excess of political testosterone" is a primary source of America's image problem.

Whatever the case, the attention is a tremendous opportunity for voters to change international perceptions of Americans and America.

Is resonance with an international audience an important presidential characteristic for you? And if so, what characteristics should the ideal candidate represent?

embodying the presidency

In their appearances candidates for president must balance our need to see them as one of us with our need for them to embody wisdom and excellence equal to the immense power of the job. In short, they need to look and sound better than us without seeming too good for us.

I see Obama managing this tension in a full-bodied look at some of his recent speeches. We know that the body communicates or speaks, and television coverage and Internet coverage of the races give us plenty of opportunity to see and hear the candidates as they chase the presidency. Obama's body language has become more and more a part of his message.

Has anyone else noticed how he raises his chin when he hits a high point? It's really kind of cocky, to have your chin so high, but at the same time, we've all known cocky people who can back it up, and when Obama is talking about King or about the American Dream or our future, he backs it up. The proud chin-up position is an extension of the firm posture that we take as a sign of leadership. It allows him to look down at his audience, but since his speeches often mix warmth with toughness, it's not aloof or standoffish.

Likewise, anyone notice the furrowed brow? It's almost always furrowed lately. Again, it actually communicates a kind of anger or fierceness, but he never seems mean (for that, watch McCain talk about Romney--positively McNasty). Thinking ahead, the furrowed brow is a nice antidote to the Republican party's strategy of feminizing its opponents in the last few elections. That is, a guy who looks like this and talks like this is harder to paint as "soft" on defense or crime. Whatever he might be saying with words, he is also saying with his face.

I've said nothing of his skin or its color, which is a big part of his overall bodily affect, especially with white America. But that's another topic.

Who Chooses Presedential Candidates?

For more than a month now presidential campaigns have been receiving extended media coverage, and, by now, almost everyone in the country has been exposed to the Democratic and Republican coverage of the primaries. Delegate counts are all over the media; however, it was hard to find the recent information on the Superdelegates except for one article that appeared in NY Times today. According to the article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/us/politics/28superdelegates.html?ref=politics), if Michigan’s and Florida’s delegates will not be counted, there will be 796 superdelegates, which constitutes one fifth of all the delegates. To my understanding, the support of the majority of these politicians has been acquired long before the primaries have started through earlier political favors and deals that have been made. Presently, as NY times along with CBS state, approximately 25% of the superdelegates support Clinton while only 10% are in favor of Obama.

Based on that statistics, it would be not enough for Obama to win as many delegates on the Super Tuesday as Hillary Clinton does, since the NY senator has secured a sufficient number of superdelegate’s vote. However, isn’t it the flow in the democratic system? In this case majority of people’s vote would not determine the candidate.

So are the primaries and caucuses a democratic illusion and the candidates are still chosen by the elite of the party? Or is the Superdelegate system simply a tool used to swing the votes when the frontrunner did not emerge after the primaries. What do you think?

Has Bill Clinton Hurt, or Helped, Hillary's Campaign?

With the newly announced Kennedy endorsement of Barack Obama, speculation has arisen that the Clintons’ “good cop/bad cop” routine went too far. Since his appearances in South Carolina leading up to the primary, Bill has been criticized for morphing what was once Hillary’s solo campaign into a co-candidacy. Further, after making comments with racial undertones, much of the black middle class and church going residents of South Carolina were turned off from Hillary rallies and events. Furthermore, it can be argued that Bill’s attacking remarks and actions in recent weeks have, unfortunately, put the Hillary campaign on the defensive. In a recent press conference, Hillary noted that it was, indeed, still she who was running for president, and her husband’s abrasiveness was merely the reaction of a loving, protecting spouse.

Personally, I feel that while the Bill/Hillary duo is a strong part of the Hillary campaign, and has certainly helped Hillary in many ways, Bill’s presence has been hindering her as of late for the afore mentioned reasons. Hillary, as a woman, may be unfairly looked upon as an individual who needs her husband to do her dirty work because she cannot stick up for herself. I don’t believe that is the case, but she is the only candidate at the moment who has allowed her spouse to retain such a prominent role in the campaign. Bill needs to gain a hold on his emotions, take a step back from the forefront of the campaign, or at the very least give up his “bad cop” persona.

The Kennedys’ Endorsement of Obama:

The Today Show’s Take on Clinton:

Obama, Ted Kennedy and the Latinos

Obama received Ted Kennedy’s endorsements today. What I found interesting while reading various news sources today of the endorsement from Ted Kennedy is that more than once it was suggested that his endorsement “will help Obama with traditional Democratic groups where Clinton has been strong – union households, Hispanics and downscale worker.”

 

Being that I am second generation Mexican American, I am trying to think of how this endorsement will help with Latinos. My dad and his siblings overwhelmingly supported Obama before the endorsement. They lived through the JFK presidency as children, but what about those Latinos that didn’t? I mean those specifically that arrived during the massive immigration of the 1980s.

 

In the polls, Latinos prefer Hillary. I am thinking it is because they witnessed the Clinton presidency of the ‘90s. I do not think many Latinos that naturalized in the U.S. and are registered voters know the history behind the Kennedy family. I also think racial tension plays a factor and more so with those who have not been here long.

 

I do not know how significant endorsements are in attracting votes, but I am curious about the results of Super Tuesday, especially those from California.

 

Ted Kennedy will be campaigning for Obama throughout Arizona, New Mexico and California. I am looking forward to the Spanish-speaking media’s coverage of Ted Kennedy campaigning and the effect it has. Today both Obama and Kennedy were interviewed by and Spanish reporter at Univision, Spanish television station.

 

I didn’t find any article focusing on the connection between Ted Kennedy and Latinos. These two articles I borrowed snippets from for my post:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/8161.html

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/8134_Page2.html

"Florida, Florida, Florida"

After all the fanaticizing about a brokered convention for the GOP, tomorrow’s republican primary in Florida looks to be the deciding contest. This race was supposed to be “fluid” but in a few hours it is going to be settled and it’s the democrats who will be left fighting it out at least until Super Tuesday (February Fifth). Fred Thompson did not win South Carolina. Rudy Guliani’s firewall is not working. Mike Huckabee is old news. If you are a registered republican in Florida, you now have the opportunity to play God. Mitt Romney has a ton of money and the support of the conservative talk radio constituency and the people who used to support Mike Huckabee. John McCain has the support of party moderates (the people who used to support Rudy) and members of the republican establishment who are looking ahead at the general election. If John McCain wins tomorrow, he will have broken through and won a primary without the support of independent voters. This will allow him to raise some serious money, and it would force Sean Hanity and Rush Limbaugh to walk it off and support the senator from Arizona. If Mitt Romney wins, he will be unstoppable because he has so much money and such a well run organization, and his opponent will be crippled by the fact that he can’t win a closed republican primary. Fellow Trojan, Cindy McCain seems to think her husband’s campaign is finished if he doesn’t take the Sunshine state.

Is this the end for Rudy Giuliani?

The Florida Primary is coming up, but for Rudy Giuliani it may be too little, too late. The Giuliani campaign is reaching its climax tomorrow when polls in Florida open. The Giuliani strategy has been unorthodox and risky. While Romney, Huckabee, and McCain have all won a primary, Giuliani has fallen back, both in the standings, and in the press. When this election began, Rudy Giuliani was the front-runner for the GOP. He ran on a campaign that centered around his experience as a leader during the September 11th attacks. His repeated references to his time as mayor during the aftermath of those attacks helped him to secure an early lead, but now the tides have turned and he is struggling to stay in the race. Giuliani sat out of these early races in order to focus on Florida and next week’s Super Tuesday. Throughout this whole process, Giuliani has stared critics in the face, stating that the election has no clear-cut winner and that his run for the presidency is still going strong. According to CNN, Giuliani assured supporters of his intention to fight at a rally in Daytona Beach, Florida, on Monday. “What happened is it has become a very competitive race…Four or five people-four, five-have a chance at getting the nomination. “And Florida will give a lot of definition to that.” Giuliani is hoping his risky campaign plans will pay off when the polls close in Florida on Tuesday, but the recent emergence of the other GOP candidates makes this an even more difficult feat. The Giuliani story is a really interesting one because if Giuliani fails to win the Republican nomination, he will have no one to blame but himself. Instead of riding the wave of popularity he held at the beginning of this process, Giuliani stepped aside. In doing so, he let John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee steal some of the spotlight. Going into tomorrow’s primary, Giuliani might act confident, but he’ll have to fight as an underdog rather than a favorite. He was careless. Even though the earlier primaries lack the electoral votes of Florida and Super Tuesday, historically, these states have been good indicators of the rest of the election. After the votes have been counted in Florida, Giuliani will either be right back in the thick of things, or he’ll be calling a press conference to announce his withdrawal from the presidential race. Will his unorthodox approach pay off, or have his critics been right from the beginning?


Information for this post was taken from the CNN Article: "Giuliani's Florida Strategy About to be Put to Test"
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/22/giuliani.florida/index.html?iref=newssearch

Ron Paul

I thought that this was interesting as i am starting to like Ron Paul a lot. I dont think he is gettign fair media coverage. This is from an article.

After the rally, he said he agrees with his supporters that his campaign has not gotten fair coverage in the mainstream media. Instead, his campaign has relied on alternative media and organizing tools such as MeetUp.com.

“Without them we wouldn’t exist,” he said.

After his speech, Paul allowed supporters to line up and took the time to pose for pictures and sign autographs for all of them. Many had fliers or posters. Brandon Dickey of Auburn had Paul sign a pocket version of the Constitution.

Paul said, with all the support he’s gotten, his ideas will only get more traction.

“Some have said I’ve helped to remove your apathy, but you have helped remove my skepticism,” Paul said.

I found the quote at the end pretty moving

Ref:http://www.politickerme.com/ron-paul-revolution-679

Much Ado About Nothing?

It's an exciting time to follow politics, for sure. But it's also a confusing one. As the primary period approaches the crucial "Super Tuesday" voting and millions of Americans prepare to simultaneously cast their votes for their party's general election candidate, there's one large, glaring, yet strangely familiar figure that must be dealt with first: Florida.

For Republicans, the stakes are clear: win Florida, and you, most likely, become the "front runner" for your party's nomination. With McCain and Romney, the best performers thus far in the race, virtually tied in current polls in Florida, a win would be huge. Not only would they be victorious in a "winner take all" contest and collect all of the at-large delegates, but this victory, coming exactly a week before "Super Tuesday," would give the winner huge momentum and, presumably, a good number of new donors that could give them the edge in those crucial contests the next week. It's clearly a big deal.

But what does Florida mean for the democrats? Well, that depends on who you ask. Because of the state's decision to move its primary up before Super Tuesday, the Democratic Party punished the state by taking away its delegates. The candidates, therefore, agreed to follow the rules of this punishment by not campaigning in the state. There will be an election for the democrats on Tuesday, despite all this, but really, who cares?

Clinton, that's who. While Obama is now focusing on Super Tuesday states and passing Florida by, because of the state's temporary status as a meaningless contest, Clinton realizes that there is a great opportunity here to recapture the spotlight, with her name still on the ballot, and claim victory in a key general election battleground right before Super Tuesday. Even before votes were cast in South Carolina on Saturday, Hillary Clinton, presumably expecting a large defeat in SC, had already begun to try to shift the focus to the Sunshine State. She even says she'll be there Tuesday night as the results come in, knowing she'll, most likely, easily claim victory.

Why this is so interesting is that Florida, the star of the 2000 election, and key to any presidential general election victory, is being treated like an afterthought by Obama, as he was told to do by his party, and Clinton is using this unique opportunity to her advantage. It's even been said that the Republicans have loved watching this recent show of "Florida-dissing" by the democrats, as come November, democratic voters who felt they may have been ignored in the primary period may not be as enthusiastic about showing up at the polls and supporting Obama, or Clinton, for that matter. Clinton sees both this danger, and the possibility of a large, symbolic victory over Obama, and she is ready to capitalize on this Tuesday night. So what does Florida really mean for this election? We'll soon find out.

Link to article

Will the Monica Lewinsky Scandal affect Hillary's candidacy?

I would like to share an interesting comment made to me by a women who I was speaking with regarding the election. We were talking about how great it would be to have a woman in office, and therefore, I assumed that she was voting for Hillary. However, she then said that she would never vote for a woman who would stay with her husband after committing adultery and publicly humiliating her. She said that a woman smart enough to lead a country should be smart enough to know the difference between right and wrong. I found this statement rather intriguing for it leads me to believe that Mr. Clinton’s former actions, and Hillary’s decision could be a deciding factor for her democratic candidacy. Some people will automatically judge her personal decisions she has made in her marriage, and will overlook her strengths as a leader of this nation. So what do you think? Will the Monica Lewinsky scandal continue to haunt the Clinton family to this very day? Will it sway voters to disregard Hillary as a candidate? I personally think it might. After all, if Hillary does indeed become President, she will be making history, and will be seen as an influential role model. What are your thoughts?

Unity is the great need of the hour

Senator Barack Obama’s victories in Iowa and recently in South Carolina challenge the traditional discourse held by the media and observers. The likelihood to see a black American man or a woman taking place in the oval office has fed the debate on voters’ segmentation. Indeed, according to political commentators, there would have a black vote, a white vote, a Latino vote or a woman vote. Thus, state after state, political pundits try to anticipate the results of the vote based on the sociological population of the state.
Obama’s victories in Iowa and in South Carolina demonstrate that he can no longer be considered as the candidate of the sole African American community. It is true that South Carolina has an important black population, but Iowa is said to be a “white” state. These victories point out that Obama’s speech transcends the communities and the races and that the democratic candidate has reached this universal posture that is necessary for a man who wants to be the president of such a large and diverse country. On the Clinton’s side, the strategy seems to be to describe Barack Obama as the candidate of a sole community. Bill Clinton’s recent comparison between Obama and the black pastor Jesse Jackson is the evidence that Hillary Clinton has an interest in maintaining the illusion of a segmented vote. By stating that “unity is the great need of the hour,” Barack Obama has bet that this era is over.

Bill Clinton - Obama Tensions

This fight hasn't suffered from lack of attention, but we haven' focused on most of the back and forth. Given how fast it is developing it is easy to lose track. There are lots of specific items, but here are some highlights from their dispute.

First, President Clinton used the phrase 'fairy tale' in a New Hampshire appearance when discussing Obama's position on the war.


In Nevada, Sen. Obama stated that President Reagan, not President Clinton, was the last transcendent president.


President Clinton argued that the media is 'crazy' for putting so much focus on their fight.


Last week (1/21) Senator Obama discussed the 'troubling' nature of the comments on Good Morning America.


As the South Carolina primary results were coming in, President Clinton attempted to dismiss Obama's win citing that Rev. Jesse Jackson twice won the South Carolina primary.



Finally, this morning on ABC's this week, Sen. Obama answered the Jackson comparison by describing the differences between the two political eras. Watch this clip and Sen. Obama's victory speech in SC and you an emerging theme of past vs. future in his speeches.

McCain-Romney Tensions

Almost lost in the coverage from South Carolina is an increasingly close battle between two leading GOP candidates. As Senator McCain and Gov. Romney each compete for the upcoming Florida primary it is increasingly apparent that both sides see the other as their primary challenge for the nomination.

Some highlights of the recent coverage:

• The NYT's John Broder argues that McCain is gaining support from the mainstream GOP (login required).
• Sasha Issenberg and Michael Levenson of the Boston Globe detail how McCain is challenging Romney on questions of setting deadlines for withdrawing from Iraq. CNN's Jeffrey Toobin checks in and disputes the McCain allegation.
  
• 
  
• Elizabeth Holmes of the WSJ argues that recent economic turmoil is shifting the focus to Romney.
• Michael Luo, also of the NYT, reports that Romney is disliked among other GOP candidates. Enjoy this quote

"... the almost visceral scorn directed at Mr. Romney by his rivals has been overshadowed. “Never get into a wrestling match with a pig,” Senator John McCain said in New Hampshire this month after reporters asked him about Mr. Romney. “You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.”"

Life after Super Tuesday

Stephen Ohlemacher of the Associated Press tells us not to expect either party to crown a nominee next Tuesday. The lead (with my emphasis):

"Don't look to crown any presidential nominees on Super Tuesday.  The race for delegates is so close in both parties that it is mathematically impossible for any candidate to lock up the nomination on Feb. 5, according to an Associated Press analysis of the states in play that day."

Obama Victory Speech

I will make sure to use prominent speeches from all of the candidates, but so far it is Senator Obama's speeches that are gaining greater attention. His SC victory speech was also well-received. What do you think?

South Carolina exit polls follow-up

Lots of news coming out of the South Carolina Democratic Party. If the surprise news from Nevada was Obama's endorsements not translating into voters - it looks like the story in (the other) SC was Obama's ability to build a much stronger voter block. Lots of folks are now reviewing the exit polls to try to explain how the scope of this magntiude was missed. A couple of good reads are David Paul Kuhn of Politico.com and Mark Blumenthal at Pollster.com.

A notable endorsement

As I watched coverage of the South Carolina primary results, several commentators brought up an op-ed piece by Caroline Kennedy appearing in tomorrow's New York Times in which the daughter of President John F. Kennedy endorses Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination. I have often heard people compare Obama to JFK and this endorsement might lend greater legitimacy to such comparisons. Obama is Kennedyesque in his youth, charisma, and optimism; further, much of his rhetoric celebrates ideals while aiming to bring people together for the national good and inspire people to participate in the political process for the first time.

Caroline Kennedy suggests that "qualities of leadership, character and judgment play a larger role than usual" in this race because the candidates' policy positions are very similar. I tend to agree--with platforms being so similar, Democrats are more choosing between different styles of leadership and symbolic notions attached to each candidate. Tonight Obama spoke of the diverse coalition of support he has built; his success in SC across many demographic groups provides evidence that he has a real ability to be a uniter.

What do you think? Do comparisons to JFK hold up or is Obama a totally new breed of politician?

GS note - The link has been updated and corrected. 

South Carolina Democratic Primary

After reading CNN’s article, Steady to strong turnout as South Carolina votes, to which CNN's Peter Hamby, Alexander Mooney, Bill Schneider, Suzanne Malveaux and Jessica Yellin contributed, it was discussed that “blacks hold the key to victory” in South Carolina. It also states that Obama will gain legitimate standing with the Democratic Party if he wins the black vote by a solid margin. But here is my question: why is it so crucial for him to have the support of the black community, especially when he won in Iowa where there are virtually only white voters. Shouldn’t the focus be on getting the support of various communities so that you are representative of the country as a whole? Maybe I’m too idealistic, but why just because he is black should he have the support of the black community, and furthermore, why since Hillary is a female should she have the support of the female population in order to validate their run for the White House. Each of these communities is equally crucial to both of the candidates, not just the ones that mirror each candidate’s exterior.

The GOP race

The GOP debate tonight  gives us an opportunity to not lose sight of that very competitive race. The debate just ended and it is being already talked about as critical to Giuliani's hopes. Treat this as an open thread to discuss the GOP race and GOP candidates.

Also wanted to share a recent McCain video. In between being endorsed by Sylvester Stallone and the New York Times, we see a little of McCain being positioned as the best candidate to beat the Democrats in November.

Mitt Knows who Let the Dogs Out

I thought this was pretty funny. This video is of Romney in Jacksonville, FL trying, and failing, to relate to voters. Enjoy...

Bill Defends Hilary's Involvement with Wal Mart

As many have mentioned, Bill Clinton seems to be playing a major role in Hilary’s campaign. He even defends her past involvement with Wal Mart. Her 6 years of being on the board has become an issue in the campaign with Hilary being criticized for being apart of a company that is not so environmentally friendly nor labor union friendly. Bill Clinton insists that she did nothing but make Wal Mart more environmentally conscious and encouraged them to buy more American products. He says that Hilary took the position because Wal Mart specifically asked her to help them become more “environmentally sensitive,” which she agreed to. I wonder how accurate that statement is. He also points out that Wal Mart is one of the “leading forces for trying to help make America more economically independent on the energy front.” Obama’s spokesman said, "If they want to defend her service to one of the least environmentally-friendly, least labor-union friendly companies in the country, they're welcome to do that.” It is clear that Bill is playing a major role in the campaign, and I feel like are many who feel that voting for Hilary will also give them Bill Clinton. Does it seem that they are running as a team?

What do you see yourself as?

(this poll is anonymous)

Obama's Ebenezer Church Speech

I mentioned this in the earlier links, but Sen. Obama's speech in Atlanta is generating a tremendous amount of YouTube traffic (386,000 hits as of Tuesday night). The Nation has a rundown on traffic about the speech. This is one of the first full-length speeches to be given in the YouTube era that is gaining significance as a stand-alone piece of campaign rhetoric. Check it out when you have a chance. Regardless of your political views - you don't often hear a update of America's political heritage with this degree of coherence.

The Bill Factor

An interest facet of this election is the increasingly prominent role that Bill Clinton is playing in Hillary’s election campaign. Recently engaged in a number of attacks on Obama, ranging from questioning the degree of his anti-war stance to his mild praise for Reagan, there is no doubt Bill’s role will play a large role. His credentials, namely former President, create an entirely new meaning for Trent and Friedenberg’s campaign strategy of “use of surrogates on the campaign trail.” While support from family and spouses on the campaign trail certainly helped candidates like Kerry and George W. Bush, Bill Clinton’s involvement is an entirely new level. Revered by many, especially democrats, as an excellent president who led the country to great economic prosperity, his message resonates strongly with many. An excellent example of this is Bill’s strong support from the African-American community, particularly in the South. It comes as no surprise that Bill is currently in South Carolina while Hillary is campaigning elsewhere.

Bill’s presence in Hillary’s campaign, however, may prove to be a double edged sword. Currently, it allows Bill to use his popular image to garner support for Hillary. It has also allowed him to conduct political attacks against Obama, thereby making accusations while deflecting the blame from going towards Hillary. That being said, the new wave of attacks is forcing some Democrats to raise their eyebrows. Both Majority Whip Clyburn and Majority Leader Tom Daschle are concerned about the aggressive attacks that are coming from Bill Clinton. It will be interesting to see how the Bill factor continues to play out. It could provide much needed support or more unneeded liability for the Clinton campaign.

The following articles helped contribute to this article:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/21/obama.clintons/index.html?section=cnn_latest

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080122220445.whcffr9b&show_article=1

The Conservative Divide

Fred Thompson has dropped his bid for the Republican nomination with a simple three sentence statement which was released to the Associated Press earlier today. For a campaign that began with an appearance on The Tonight Show just a few months ago, this was nothing short of a major disappointment for the GOP. It was this man, many believed, that could unify the party behind the three principles of what has been called Reagan Conservatism. These pillars of the modern conservative party bring together fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, and foreign policy conservatives. While all remaining candidates stand for at least one of these principles, none can claim with any honesty to hold all three. The danger now lies in the possibility that the party will be divided causing many Republicans to stay home in November. Will a social conservative vote for Rudy? Will a foreign policy conservative vote for Huckabee? The fact is that many will be alienated one way or another. Romney is good on the economy, McCain and Giuliani are good on foreign policy, Huckabee is a social Conservatives dream, and Fred....well, Fred is going home for now only to reemerge later as a possible running mate.

What is this election really about?

The CNN article "S.C. debate to highlight Democratic fight for black vote" raises several interesting issues brought about by the prospect of a black president in the United States. While some feel that Barack Obama would be the natural recipient of the black vote, many African Americans have been hesitant to cast their hopes behind the candidate until recent polls in South Carolina. They fear that doing so may result in a wasted effort because America will never really elect a black president. Similar sentiments have been raised regarding the proposed acceptability of the American people, due to Obama's extraordinary victory over Clinton in the Iowa Caucus, followed by subsequent losses in New Hampshire and Nevada. How many citizens purport a certain level of open-mindedness in public, but vote differently in a private ballot? Is American ready for this change, or are they only interested in seeming as so? 

Personally, I think that it is excellent and very reflective of the changing face of society and what it means to be an American to have an African American and a woman as frontrunners in a presidential election. However, because of these firsts, both candidates run the risk of being pigeonholed into their respective categories. As opposed to personal attacks on each other, and media focus on race and gender, it would be nice to see both candidates evaluated more by their positions on the issues and whether they are capable of doing the job. Obviously race and gender cannot be easily ignored, but sometimes you have to question what this election is really about, and are the physical attributes of the candidates overshadowing what's really important, or is this what is really important in the eyes of the American people?

McCain, Too Old to Run?

When I first assessed the Presidential candidates, I quickly wrote off John McCain. If elected, he would be the oldest president to be inaugurated. I became concerned with whether or not his health would permit him to be an effective president and if he would live to see the end of his term. To a 21 year-old like myself, seventy-one seems old, but how old is it?

Age is relative and should not be a determining factor of whether or not a person is qualified to run for presidential office. With media coverage of elections constantly growing, image of presidential candidates has grown increasingly important. Many people argue that Franklin D. Roosevelt would never have been elected in a campaign with modern media technology. Seeing him in a wheelchair, people may have assumed that his health would make him incapable of being president. However, he served twelve years and guided the country out of the Great Depression and through War. Furthermore, being young and good-looking does not equal good health. At age 43, John F. Kennedy had the look, but he also had many medical issues that the public did not know about.

McCain is not afraid to address the issue of his age. In his campaign in 2000, he released a medical and psychiatric report to prove his health and sanity. While McCain would be the oldest president inaugurated to office for the first time, it is also important to note that advancements in medicine have increased life expectancy. Being 70 today is not what it was twenty years ago. McCain has the experience and wisdom necessary for the presidential office. Therefore, if people are not going to vote for him, it should be because of his policies rather than his age.

http://election2008.usc.edu/2008/01/mccain-age-factor.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1702368,00.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22759611/


**This entry is not endorsing McCain. Simply stating that his age should not be the reason people do not vote for him.

Obama is not winning amongst Latinos!

I read an article about a week ago in the New York Times that discussed the racial and gender issues that are prevalent in this upcoming election. Although this election has been heavily circled around the issue of national security, this upcoming election can be ground breakingbecause there is a possibility that an African American or a woman will become the next president of the United States of America.

This article was very interesting because it discussed the alliance the Latino community has with Bill and Hilary Clinton. The Latino community feels that Hilary will address their social issues and represent their socio-economic interests. What was even more interesting is that Bill Clinton has had a long affinity with the African American community, therefore it seems as if Hilary Clinton is winning the minoritycommunities; especially in cities like New York City. Bill Clinton made a wise decision in placing his office in Harlem, New York.

We should ask our selves if Bill Clinton's close relationship with the Africa community benefit Hilary Clinton's campaign and increase her opportunity to win the 2008 election?

Unfortunately, Obama may be negatively affected because of the lack of support that he will have from the minority communities.

Ironically, the debate tonight covered the debate of race vs. gender. Does race triumph gender?

Race or gender? Reax

An interesting read on CNN has raised some questions for me. CNN published an article discussing black women having to choose between voting their race (Obama) or their gender (Clinton) in the upcoming Democratic primaries. CNN then posted a follow-up to the article, with reader reaction. One of the more interesting reactions was from a reader who basically said that he's a white man who is counting Edwards out, meaning that he too has the "plight" of choosing between race (Clinton) and gender (Obama) when he selects a presidential candidate.

My question is this: Do you think this line of reasoning will ever take hold among voters should Edwards drop out? Will the media think this aspect of the presidential race is even worth reporting? Or is the whole issue of voting race vs. gender oversimplified? While CNN attempts to shed light on a group of voters that will play a key role in who the next Democratic presidential candidate is, does the race vs. gender thing reinforce what appears to be an underlying idea that women and minorities can't look past surface characteristics?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/21/emails.race.gender/index.html

Are Clinton and Obama making politics "cooler"?

In past years, many campaigns to get young voters out and voting such as MTV's rock the vote have been marginally successful but really failed to mobilize as many people as they'd have liked to using the "it's hip to vote" angle. Remakes of "What's Going On" and "Wake Up Everybody" by modern top 40 artists still rang in as trite and dated. There was already such a distance between the 18-21 year olds and the original versions of those songs that the the inspiration the new versions were attempting to borrow from failed to come across to the newer generations. However, it really caught my attention the other day to hear Cuban rapper Pitbull on a bootleg remix of America's #1 song on the Billboard Hot 100 ("Low" by Flo Rida f/ T-Pain) saying "Me, I'm Diddy, Jay-Z, and a little bit of Biggie, gimme the Louis and I'll be out, what'chu think boy? Forget a debate, boy, they're feeling me like Obama and Hilary...."

The three conclusions that this causes me to draw on really makes me think that a more 'organic' (or 'bootleg') approach will be a more successful one if we're really going to try to mobilize youth culture using music. (1) Pitbull is trying to establish himself as an important figure by drawing comparisons between himself and hip-hop moguls/icons Diddy, Jay-Z and Notorious B.I.G., and, in the same breath, says "They're feeling me like Obama and Hilary." This puts Obama and Hilary on the same level of importance (to the hip-hop audience) as several respected icons of the industry, thereby saying "Obama and Hilary are important to the hip-hop community, too." (2) Pitbull's rapping usually comes from a place that stands for the underdog and he is one of the few major Latino rappers in the game right now, so his endorsement via name-dropping of the Democratic candidates puts them in the minds of his intended audience which largely includes an urban Latino population. (3) The idea that these two figures are considered culturally relevant enough to be immortalized in song before they're even presidential candidates shows how significant this year's primaries are. He would not have included them in his lyrics if he did not think that people would still remember BOTH of them after the primaries next month.

This wasn't a political anthem and it's not a song about rocking the vote. He wasn't paid to mention them. I think there's a hip factor that Obama and Clinton possess that make them a believable part of a rap song, something that wouldn't feel as organic as name dropping a stuffy, old, rich, white heterosexual male senator from a red state.

Hispanic Primary Day, Feb. 5, 2008

Hispanics, for the first time, could have a decisive vote in who wins the Democratic presidential nomination.

On Super Tuesday, February 5, 2008, California and New York, two of the largest delegate-giving states, along with Illinois and Arizona, go to the polls. In 2004, Hispanics accounted for 16 percent of the vote in the California primary, 11 percent in New York, 17 percent in Arizona. (Florida, with its large and politically active Cuban voting bloc, will vote on January 29th.)

Results from Nevada give a hint of what might be expected in the demographically similar state of California. Despite the endorsement of Mr. Obama by the state's largest union, Culinary Workers, many of the union's predominately Hispanic members told pollsters that irregardless of the union's endorsement, they would be voting for Hillary Clinton.

The issue of race, undoubtedly, played a critical factor in that vote.

“Many Latinos are not ready for a person of color,” Natasha Carrillo, a resident of East Los Angeles who organizes citizenship drives, told The New York Times. “I don’t think many Latinos will vote for Obama.”

While younger voters in general favor Mr. Obama, older Hispanics are expected to cast their lot en masse with Hillary Clinton. Speaking with The Times, thirty year old Javier Perez, a former marine, concurred with the assessment. Older Hispanics like his grandmother are unlikely to support an African-American, he told the paper. “Unfortunately,” he said, "I do think race will play a part in her decision.”

A recent poll the ethnic media consortium New America Media found much mistrust and fear among blacks and Latinos toward each other. In the poll, Earl Ofari Hutchinson of New America Media writes, “a slight majority of blacks finger pointed Latinos for taking jobs from blacks and eroding their political power. A near majority of Latinos finger-pointed blacks as crime prone and were fearful of them. A majority of Latinos said that they preferred to do business with whites. Few Latinos they preferred to do business with blacks."

One San Francisco-based group, Vote Hope 2008, has begun a novel approach to bridging the black-Hispanic divide. Vote Hope 2008, backing Mr. Obama, has created a series of Spanish and English language mini-dramas modeled on the popular telenovela drama form to address the animosity and fear toward blacks shared among some Latinos. The mini-novelas, which follow "the journey of the Ortiz family and their burgeoning support for Presidential candidate Barack Obama," are remarkably persuasive. But the challenge facing Vote Hope is in promoting viewership for the innovative campaign. Getting airtime for the three-part series, which run around 4 minutes each, would be prohibitively expensive, even if run only on Spanish language networks. (And with requirements for equal time, it would be hard to find a slot in regular programming for that long a segment.) Distribution will undoubtedly be limited to self-selecting viewers of YouTube, and those already drawn to the camp. An unresolved issue for the Obama camp indeed.

Thanks and some recent links

Thanks to everyone who has taken the leap in the first few days. Special thanks to Richmond Communication Professor Paul Achter for his 'Its the economy' post from Friday.

I will be going over the technological medium again in class tomorrow. I would like to work with everyone to get you up and posting in week 2 of the course.

In the interim, here are some quick reads and links to keep you current on the communicative nature of the campaign:

• Peter Applebome of the New York Times asks "Is Eloquence Overrated?" and gets some interesting perspectives from prominent Communication scholars.
  
• Barack Obama made a push for 'unity' to take its place alongside 'change' as a crucial campaign theme. His speech at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, GA is an interesting effort to shift the recent campaign conversation among the Democrats. Watch the speech via c-span (using media player or read it at his website.
• Some of you noted this theme already (nice job djc), but how do delegate counts 'matter' alongside 'winning a primary or caucus?' CNN tries to make sense of Clinton's 'win' in Nevada and it opens the door to Gretchen's question of a brokered convention. As we learn how this new primary season works it will be interesting if the attention given to these primaries doesn't provide as much closure as folks anticipated. This is certainly apparent in Romney's delegate-heavy strategy.
• Still lots of divergent trends on the GOP side. Giuliani continues to struggle in the polls, despite some new ads that have caused a stir. When Chuck Norris is getting a good deal of coverage, it may be a sign that there is a long way to go before picking a nominee.
• Finally, be sure to take a quick look at the reaction from tonight's Democratic debate in South Carolina.

See you tomorrow.

Independent Votes in California go to Democrats

Interesting decision by the Republican Party to only allow registered Party voters to vote in the primaries. In my opinion this is only going to hurt the Republican Party. Currently 42.7% of registered voters are Democrats, 33.6% Republican, and 19.3% Independent. With the Republican Party losing roughly 20% of the vote, I do not understand the reasoning behind this decision. In the LA Times Hector Barajas was claiming that the party decided to exclude non-party affiliates because he felt that the Independent voters could create mischief in many areas where there are more Independent voters than Republicans. While I understand that California is a more liberal and democratic state, I still feel that the parites especially the Republicans would want all the votes that they can get.
In my opinion by not allowing Independent voters to vote in the Republican primary will lead to fewer Independent voters in the actual election. By discouraging voters now, I feel that many are going to be reluctant to change their vote in the actual election after being dismissed in the primary. Therefore the Democratic Party will claim majority if not more of the Independent votes. It will be interesting to follow this through to the actual election and whether or not after the presidential nominees are selected; the Republican candidate can change the Independent voter’s opinion of the Party.


http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-me-independents21jan21,1,6812616.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

Candidates' electability

The 2008 Presidential campaign is a surprised. Indeed, based on the controversial results of the Bush administration partly because of the Iraq war, a democratic victory seemed to be easy. In Europe, we are used to what we call alternance or the change in power. On the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, people think that belonging to the same political party than George W. Bush is a handicap. It makes no doubt that a democratic candidate is going to win, and it is the reason why the European media are largely covering Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s campaigns. Yet, the campaign is widely more open than it appears to be and, like in every presidential race, candidates have to prove their ability to resolve people’s issues. Democratic candidates have no advantage over republican ones. A January-14 article published in the New York Times points out that Senators Clinton and Obama have both to fight to prove their electability. Obama’s victory in Iowa and Clinton’s one in New Hampshire have shown democratic voters’ confidence in the two candidates for competing against a republican. Surprisingly, republican candidates don’t have this electability issue. More substantial issues seem to be at stake according to a survey conducted by the New York Times. Americans’ prime concern is no longer the Iraq war, but the economy; 62 percent said they believe that the economy is getting worse. For republican sympathizers, now the question is which candidate will be able to improve the country’s economy. This survey points out the role played by voters in setting the agenda; if the Iraq war is no longer their main concern, it is going to help republican candidates to put a distance between them and the Bush administration.

Post inspired by article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/us/politics/14poll.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

the stupid economy

From the start of the race until now, what we call "Iraq" has become a less prominent issue in this campaign and the economy has become more prominent. When people are asked what's important to them (check the polls linked to the blog for evidence) they say, to paraphrase the Clinton campaign of 1992: it's the economy, stupid. On one level, this is not unexpected. People need to feel, deeply, the consequences of federal policy before they see connections between themselves and national political races. And few issues run as deep and broad those concerning the pocketbook. I also find the rise of the economy as a campaign issue disheartening, for it means that many Americans can forget or ignore Afghanistan and Iraq and the devastating consequences of our foreign policy. The pocketbook is an everyday, felt reality but the wars can be turned off.

But for a moment, let's live with the economy as a hot-button issue. There's certainly plenty to make of it. According to The Nation, in the last year prices of staples in the American diet like oranges, eggs, bread, and milk have risen double digits (10-20 percent). For families living month-to-month, paycheck to paycheck, this is a painful blow. As we all know, the current administration's economic policies favor tax cuts for the top one percent, who've become richer during the administration of President Bush. And now we see an attempt to stimulate the economy and plans to bail out the banks who carelessly lent money to high-risk home buyers with bad credit because those loan recipients are now, quite predictably, defaulting. According to the same Nation article, real wages have been declining since 2000 when adjusted for inflation--your money just won't go as far. Add to this the related and even steeper rise of gas prices--which adds to the retail cost of many consumer products--and you've got a snowball of seemingly small-time economic issues that erect serious obstacles in front of every working family.

Echoing Billy Joel, Oratorical Animal says the problems with the economy in this campaign are rhetorical and boil down to a matter of trust: the candidate who can communicate on the economy question will win the nomination.

Let us hope one of them emerges. Clearly John Edwards' platform makes him the undisputed champion of the working class in this race, but his candidacy is floundering against the glitz of two fellow Democrats. Lacking Edwards, can basic economic issues energize supporters of a winning ticket? We know the GOP will be shouting "class warfare" and will be happy to make Iraq a second or third most important issue. (Immigration, anyone?) Democrats interested in winning cannot let them get away with it, and the best way to do this is to be faster and better at talking about and talking to the people who've been losing out in this economy for years.

Rudy Giuliani Wins the Michigan Primary?

Yes it is true that simply by looking at the number Rudy was far from technically winning Michigan, he only received 2.85% of the vote. Yes he did finish behind Ron Paul and Law and Order's own Fred Dalton Thompson. However, Mitt Romney's win in Michigan means that the Republican field is wide open without a true front runner.
Rudy Giuliani’s campaign decided a few months ago that they were going to focus their campaign on Super Tuesday. With big states such as New York, Rudy’s home state, California and a variety of states in the Northeast where Rudy is best known, voting on February 5th he knows he had to hang on until then. The strategy was unquestionably risky because it relied on the premise that there would not be a clear leader in the race for the Republican nomination going into the February 5th primaries, so far it has paid off.
Going into Iowa Romney seemed the front-runner, Rudy was hoping for a Huckabee victory to upset Romney’s stance at the favorite for the nomination. He got it. Then in New Hampshire, Rudy was hoping for a big McCain win, therefore denying Romney the first two primaries where he poured in millions of dollars for ads. Going into Michigan the media seemed ready to declare McCain as the frontrunner barring a loss in Michigan. Had McCain won Michigan he would’ve then won South Carolina easily, probably Nevada and certainly Florida. At that point almost all Republican money would be in his hands enabling him to run ads in all Super Tuesday States. However that isn’t what happened, Romney wins Michigan and the confusion continues.
As long as this back and forth continues going into Super Tuesday, Rudy will continue to be in a position to have enough delegates to be the Republican nominee for President.

Welcome

Welcome to Annen-blog Campaign Communication, a means of extending Communication 489 beyond the clasroom. Throughout the spring semester students, faculty and friends of the Annenberg School for Communication at USC will be discussing the communicative dimensions of the presidential election.

We invite you to read along and take part. If you have any questions or need technical assistance please email me at stables@usc.edu. Enjoy!