May 6th Primaries

Senator Obama seems to have put a halt to and momentum that Senator Clinton started to get going tonight. With her narrow victory in Indiana after she had been ahead in the polls by 5 or 6% going into the primary, she did not close the gap in North Carolina where Obama had an undisputed victory over Clinton raising his delegate lead over Clinton. Obama's speech was one which emphasize his patriotism and the American Dream. He seemed to speak with the super delegates in mind, as well. While Clinton claims to be remaining in the race at least until West Virginia, one commentator noted that this is not the end for the Clinton era for politics, but the beginning of the end. So the question remains, how much longer can she last?

Reject and Denounce

All the candidates at some point during this primary have had to "reject and denounce" something one of their supporters said or did. McCain had to do it in Ohio with the radio host who kept repeating "Barack Hussein Obama". Obama had to 'denounce' Louis Farrakhan after Farrakhan endorsed Obama. After a supporter in TX said that Obama's problem was that 'he happened to be black', Clinton had to reject and denounce his statements.

These are just examples, there is so much rejecting and denouncing going on it is hard to keep track of. Ben Smith from the Politico links to a site where anyone can get in on the action of "rejecting and denouncing"! So if anyone is jealous that they can't get in on it, now you have your chance!

Enjoy...

Campaign Calories

After watching the SNL skit on former President Clinton overeating at McDonalds, I was intrigued when I came across an article discussing the candidates eating habits on the campaign trail. While the article mainly discussed Senator Clinton's and Senator Obama's eating habits, I was most fascinated at the end of the article by the section entitled "Infamous Appetite." It goes without saying that they discussed former President Clinton's eating while campaigning for his wife. Even Senator Clinton has poked fun at her husband's eating habits in North Carolina saying, "You gotta help me out here because my husband loves North Carolina, and he loves barbecue and he's been eating a lot of it across the state." Although this has nothing to do with the actual election, it seems that former President Clinton will never separate himself from the image of indulgence.

In reading the article "Appetite for Votes: Campaign Calorie Count," I tried to understand if there was a relevance to the actual election. The article discussed Senator Clinton and Senator Obama's eating habits on the campaign trail. It seems the two are fairly opposite. Clinton has accepted food offered to her throughout the campaign and frequently enjoys a beer on the way back to the plane. This all helps dispel her cold image helping her to appear more friendly and like the common public. On the other hand, Obama has no problem refusing food and drinking little beer. When offered food, he generally take the "obligatory taste." He jokes that he is "skinny, but tough." How does eating affect the candidates image? Can it affect the image enough to lose votes? Can this become part of a candidates strategy?

ABC NEWS: Appetite for Votes: Campaign Calorie Count

The Politics of North Carolina

The phrase "all politics is local" certainly applies to this year's Democratic Primary, as nearly every corner of the country will have been covered by the time this process (finally) ends, whether it be in May, June, or beyond. For me, having lived all my life prior to college in North Carolina, it's exciting to watch as the political spotlight finally returns to my home state, allowing North Carolinians the chance to play a major role in national politics.

North Carolina overall is a very odd state politically. It tends to vote Democratic in state races, as voters have elected a Democratic majority to the state Senate for more than 100 years, and Democratic governors have enjoyed great success over many decades recently, while voting Republican for President. The last Democratic Presidential candidate to win North Carolina was Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter who swept most of the South back in 1976. Senate races are the most confusing of all, as a liberal populist like John Edwards can win his seat rather easily at the same time as Jesse Helms, one of the most conservative men in America, is also enjoying great popularity.

North Carolina has roughly 9 million people, which makes it the 10th largest state in the US. Recent economic troubles have seen manufacturing and textile jobs leave the state in record numbers, while the banking capital of Charlotte continues to play a major role internationally. Two major military installations, Marine Corps' Camp Lejeune and the Army's Fort Bragg, have played a major role in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and, as a result, a large number of casualties have originated from these bases.

The outgoing governor, Mike Easley, and former Senator John Edwards have refused to endorse either Clinton or Obama, but Obama still enjoys a sizable lead among those superdelegates in the state who have already indicated their preference. Obama is leading in all recent polls taken in the state as well, in most by a large margin, and averages a double-digit advantage at this point, according to Real Clear Politics. Obama also raised nearly three times as much money from NC donors as Clinton did in the month of March, illustrating once more that Clinton faces an uphill battle in the state on May 6 to continue the momentum she gained by winning the Pennsylvania primary.

The two leading Democratic candidates for NC Governor, Bev Perdue and Richard Moore, have also endorsed Obama and used the candidate as a central part of their campaign advertisements. In response, on Monday the North Carolina GOP will begin running an ad against the two Democrats that attacks their support for Obama based on Obama's connection to Rev. Wright. The ad was posted online Wednesday, quickly rising to the #1 most viewed video on the internet because of its"controversial" strategy to bring Rev. Wright, and possibly the issue of race, back into the mix of this election. Senator McCain and the national GOP party asked the state party to not air the ad for these reasons, but in the truly unpredictable nature of North Carolina politics, the NC GOP party chairwoman is aggressively moving forward with this line of attack. What effect the ad, and the large amount of attention surrounding it, may have on the primary or general election will be interesting to follow.

If Obama is to win the Democratic primary on May 6, as most experts expect he will, it may help bring the primary season to an end, also depending on how the voting goes in Indiana on the same day. Looking forward to the general election in November, no one knows if Obama will be able to make the state a competitive battleground, but a shift from Republican to Democratic would be substantial. The state's 15 electoral votes could be up for grabs, according to Electoral-Vote.com, as the site has the state as a firm toss up at the moment based on the most recent polling, showing that if all the polling data was accurate, an Obama-McCain race would be decided by whoever wins the Tarheel State. Obviously it's too early to know which states will prove decisive this fall, but with the rising numbers of registered NC Democrats, the popularity Obama enjoys among college-aged youth, and the swirling controversy over the GOP's use of an anti-Rev. Wright ad, the election this fall could provide North Carolina with an even greater amount of political power. For the sake of an interesting race this fall, and many interesting home state storylines, here's hoping that North Carolina remains politically competitive for quite some time.

And nothing is truly changed...

With Clinton winning by exactly 10 points, the race is still up in the air. The 10 points seems to re-enforce that no progress has been made since March. It seems like the race will continue until the end of the primary season for Democrats in Puerto Rico. Republicans are very happy with the outcome of tonight because it does not give Clinton enough of a victory to validly claim that she deserves to be the nominee, but it was not small enough that Obama can claim the nomination. Clinton can claim a win is a win, but she did not win by a great enough margin to undoubtedly become the Democratic candidate. David Gergen, from CNN, points out that Obama is still in the lead ahead in the overall race for the nomination and that he is likely to hold that lead. So, then the question comes to whether super delegates will view Clinton as the better choice over Obama. And with that, we are back where we started, and the boredom of the last long and drawn out seven weeks seems to be continuing on until the convention in August. If you want to look for the bright side, (while the Democrats are not happy with the situation,) the Republicans are happy.

In the PA Race it is the Margin of Victory that Matters

Many political analysts predict that Senator Clinton will win the state of Pennsylvania. However, winning the state may not be a political victory. If Clinton fails to have a large margin of victory (by at least 10 points), it may be time for her to throw in the towel in this dragged out Democratic Primary. The 300 uncommitted superdelegates will break down this primary with a fine tooth comb. Pennsylvania is Clinton's demographic main turf. Failure to take this state by a large margin would show her loss of momentum with the lower-income Democrats who supported her in earlier elections. Clinton does not see the importance of Margin of Victory. "A win is a win," to her, but is this really just another one of her attempts to hold onto a race already lost?

I cannot wait and see what happens today. With PA looking for a record turnout in voters, it will be interesting to see who those that do not usually vote choose. For the Democratic party, I hope that this primary leaves them with some kind of direction. If we move into May and June with no clear Democratic candidate, there could be dire consequences for the party. In my opinion (although it might be biased as an Obama supporter), feels like it would be better for the party as a whole if Clinton did not gain a large margin of victory in PA or if Obama won PA. Then, the Democratic party could finally move forward, unite the party, and try to regain the White House in November.

Cafferty: Should Clinton quit if she doesn't win Pennsylvania by at least 10 points?
LAT: What to look for in the Pennsylvania primary
LAT: Clinton says margin won't matter

Swan Song for Somebody?

With the Pennsylvania primary happening tomorrow (FINALLY!!!), will whomever loses bow out of the race? We know that both candidates have pledged to stay in the race through the last primaries, but if somebody loses by double digits tomorrow, do you think it would be a good time for them to bow out?

I think that if the difference in percentage points between the two candidates is less than double digits, both Obama and Clinton should stay in, though that would be much to my chagrin, as I'm tiring of the process at this point. However, a double digit win in PA could swing the momentum heavily to one candidate, and minus anymore gaffes, could be the nail in the coffin for the loser.

So could tomorrow be the time to throw in the towel? Thoughts?

Rocky Balboa against African-American

With the upcoming primary in Pennsylvania, observers are looking for a disappearing category of people in polls: white men. The reason is that for the first of his history, the Democratic Party is going to nominate either a woman or an African-American man. Consequently, polls have focused on African-American voters as well as on women voters. In Pennsylvania, white men could make the difference next Tuesday, so that reporters are spread all over the state, searching for white men to interview. As Gail Collins wrote in her New York Times article, courting white men is not easier for the candidates. “The candidates’ desperation to make contact is showing. Barack Obama goes bowling in Altoona – with disastrous consequences. Hillary Clinton attempts to compare herself to Rocky Balboa prompting many people to note that Rocky lost to a black guy. Obama, rather cruelly, points out that Rocky is a fictional character. Clinton, in turn, reveals that she owns her own bowling ball…”
When one asks which discourse could seduce white men voters, commentators answer “maybe not change […] Pennsylvania is a state where change has not been a friend to your average white male, particularly the aging working-class ones who are the candidates’ prime target. Change left the state full of empty factories that towns keep desperately trying to make into condos or art museums.” In Pennsylvania, change pledged by Obama made white men victims, who saw part of their culture taken away. The dilemma of this election is that traditional democratic voters may be turn away from their traditional vote because of the choice offered. This may benefit the Republican Party which nominated a candidate from the majority… a white man.

The media: whose side are they on, anyway?

Theoretically, journalists present objective accounts of campaign events, but over this prolonged contest for the Democratic nomination, charges of media bias have abounded. A steady stream of debates, gaffes, and other campaign events has presented ample fodder for soul-searching among members of the news media; that is, a lot of campaign coverage has been about campaign coverage.

A recent Politico article argues that the news media is "Obama's secret weapon." As others have already noted on our blog, ABC was widely panned for its handling of last week's debate. This article suggests that Stephanopolous and Gibson's questioning of Obama, although harsh, was not out of line. The article goes on to claim that the ensuing outcry over the moderators' tough approach actually indicates a broader media bias in his favor.

The notion of Obama as a media darling is not a new one; it's what led to SNL's oft-cited debate parody which fueled Clinton's complaints that the media favors Obama consistently. Media swooning was at its peak when Obama was an underdog, and it could partly be explained as a desire for a compelling storyline. Since Obama became a frontrunner, negative press surely has swelled--but has it been nearly as bad as the ugly stories Clinton dealt with during her long reign as frontrunner? This is the central question the article seeks to answer.

The Politico writers suggest that Obama was treated no worse during last week's debate than Clinton was treated in previous debates; why didn't journalists and political observers rush to her defense then? During the debate, Obama responded to the piercing questions by deriding the kind of campaign coverage that centers too much on gaffes and fluff at the expense of substance. This arguments fits into Obama's broad theme of a "new kind of politics," and for this reason, I think his criticisms of the media resonate much more strongly than his opponent's. Clinton was dismissed as "whiny" when she pointed to media favoritism; Obama is praised as courageous when he points to media shortsightedness.

With a likely matchup between Obama and McCain--both candidates having strong relationships with the media--it will be interesting to watch how coverage unfolds.

A "Teapot Tempest"

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette posted an editorial on Saturday that discussed the recent war of words between Senators Obama and Clinton over remarks each has made that have led to intense scrutiny, criticism, and supposed backlash. The Post-Gazette, obviously an important political player this week because of their influence within Pennsylvania, the site of this week's important Democratic primary, endorsed Senator Obama a few days ago and felt the need to comment on the commotion that has been raised, primarily on the subject of Obama's recent comments in San Francisco on the ideology of working-class America.

The paper calls Hillary's attempts to repeatedly condone these comments of "bitter" Americans and their need to "cling" to guns and God, as well as Barack's mentions of Hillary's false statements on her visit to Bosnia as First Lady, merely distractions and part of the "gotcha" politics that Americans have grown to hate. The paper correctly argues that these squabbles over misstatements and mistakes have moved the dialogue away from the crucial issues that need to be dealt with, like the failing economy, mortgage foreclosures, and the future of the war in Iraq. By discussing issues that will not affect the future of this country, as the paper argues, Americans are not getting to hear the debate that they need to hear, and they certainly did not hear it Wednesday night during the debate on ABC.

These issues are distractions because they have obscured the facts about the candidates, as the Post-Gazette points out how the elitist label would actually be more applicable to Hillary, given her educational and family background, as well as how well the GOP has done over the years at arguing that they are the party of the average American (because of (mis-)statements like Barack's), all while cutting taxes for the richest citizens, championing the interests of corporate America, and misleading citizens about the reasons for going to war. The paper also mentions that these issues can be used as distractions by the GOP in the general election campaign, as they argue that John McCain would rather be pushing his personal support for guns and religion versus Obama's stance on these issues, rather than discussing how badly his party's President has handled the economy and the ongoing wars overseas.

Therefore, the paper urges Pennsylvania voters, and all Americans for that matter, to reject this kind of political distraction, or "teapot tempest," and base their vote on who "is better equipped to lead America out of Iraq and back from the precipice of recession, not who made the fewest gaffes." A reminder along these lines seems like it should be unnecessary, but in a primary season that has dragged on so long without any new conversations of substance, it appears that voters need to be told to get their priorities straight one more time.

Candidates on The Colbert Report

This past Thursday, the Democratic candidates were guests on Comedy Central’s, The Colbert Report. Colbert has been in Pennsylvania this past week covering the Primary vote. Hillary went on the show when he had technical difficulties. She stressed her want and skill to help fix things when she helped Colbert get the screen working again. It was clear that she was talking about the problems in America and the world today, and the crowd cheered her on. Later on the episode, as Colbert claimed that it was sad the Obama could not be there, he appeared on the screen behind him as a surprise. Colbert made a joke about Clinton being mad at that she fixed the screen because then Obama was able to be on the show. Obama talked about issues in America some more before ending his appearance. Both of the candidates made an attempt to be lighter and more personable people. This was a change from the hard working serious faces that each of them have kept up throughout the previous month while campaigning in Pennsylvania. With the primary fast approaching, each candidate s trying to get as much positive publicity for himself/herself as possible in light of the negative attacks made on each of them. As to who got the “Colbert bump”, we will have to wait until the primary results come in to find out.

Obama's momentum takes a "bitter" turn

Predictably, Hillary Clinton swiftly released an attack ad seeking to capitalize on Barack Obama's recent gaffe:



In the days leading up to the Pennsylvania primary, we can be sure that Clinton will continue to make an issue of Obama's poorly phrased comments, using the incident to increase her advantage among rural voters. The timing of this error is terrible for Obama.

The Bosnia story was especially harmful to Clinton because it highlighted a key weakness of her candidacy: voters' hesitation to trust her considering her reputation for manipulating facts to her own benefit. Similarly, the "bitter" comments by Obama bring his shortcomings as a candidate into sharp focus, namely, notions that he is an elitist "latte liberal" who fails to connect with the working class just as John Kerry did. Further, Obama has been an optimistic candidate whose campaign is fueled by small donations from "regular" people; these comments seem to patronize average Americans, even striking a cynical note with the "cling" part.

What's worse, this fiasco fits into an unfortunate pattern for Obama: first his wife's comments about being proud of America for "the first time," then his pastor's comments damning America, and now comments by Obama himself seem to raise doubts about his attitude toward America. Especially in a matchup with a war hero, even a hint of a lack of patriotism is not something Obama can afford to have stick to his candidacy. It is somewhat ironic that the candidate of hope finds himself blasted for being negative about his country.

Personally, I think the argument Obama was trying to make is reasonable, but as a presidential candidate, he should have known better than to use such phrasing that would open him up to attacks. He should have avoided making negative, almost stereotypical generalizations about entire groups of people, and instead emphasized broader terms ("frustration"), focusing on sympathy and solutions for small-town Americans. It must be difficult not to slip up when speaking constantly, but Obama must know that any misstep will be exploited by his opponents to his detriment.

Clinton, Obama Discuss Faith

Today, at Messiah College Obama and Clinton spent their time at the forum talking about religion. This campaign season, religion has taken a major role as candidates Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Barack Obama each have had to address their religious faith on several occasions. Clinton made sure to highlight her religious faith by telling Campbell Brown and Jon Meacham, "I don't think that I could have made my life's journey without being anchored in God's grace and without having that, you know, sense of forgiveness and unconditional love.” This seems to be referring to her husband’s affair in the White House, allowing her to address that issue while playing up her faith. In response, Obama shared his views that religion is “a foundation when other things aren't going well. That's true in my own life, through trials and tribulations." He also addressed the issue of his religious faith saying, "I am a devout Christian ... I started my work working with churches in the shadow of steel plants that had closed on the south side of Chicago ...Nobody in a presidential campaign on the Democratic side in recent memory has done more to reach out to the church and talk about, what are our obligations religiously, in terms of doing good works." This definitely makes him stand out from Clinton by pointing out that he has gone farther than anyone else has in a very long time when it comes to religion and faith, in regards to the candidates. With only 9 days left until Pennsylvania, Obama still needs to convert Hilary supporters if he wishes to win the state.

CNN report y Rebecca Sinderbrand

Babies for...

...Obama, McCain and Hillary! This is a cute package from CNN's Jeanine Moos on the Youtube phenomenon of babies for presidential candidates. Apparently there are a lot more 'Babies for Obama' videos out there, but according to the report, it's probably because the syllables 'ba' and 'ma' are a lot easier for babies to say. This video is a cute cross-section of politics and technology.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=WBuEqzGm3VA

Clinton urging bush not to support the olympics

Clinton's suggestion for Bush to "not plan on attending the opening ceremonies in Beijing, absent major changes by the Chinese government." (CNN.com) is a move that helps highlight the difference in polices clinton wants us to believe she will adopt, (i.e. challenging the bush administration and highlighting a 'need for change') but is not a realistic suggestion that any administration would carry out. If president bush adopted Clinton's suggestion and did not attend the olympics, not only would the move be viewed as aggressive and inappropriate, the consequences in terms of the economy and international trade may possibly be severe. If the Chinese and US Government allowed the olympics to harm their relationship, China, the worlds largest exporter may loose out on trading with one of their main trade partners, the united states. The mechanics of the political arena between China and the US are driven largely by trade, and as long as trade is profitable, neither country will let an event affect their relationship. This is not to say that the olympics are not important, but it is to say that trade valued in billions of dollars is worth more than an annual sporting event. Besides the economy, Barack Obama raised a point that may justify Bush's presence at the olympic games. "I'm hesitant to make the Olympics a site of political protest because I think it's partly about bringing the world together." (CNN.com) This viewpoint not only makes Barack seem more competent in international politics, but also reflects the true meaning and purpose of the Olympic games. 

Fundraising Trouble for Anti-McCain Group

An article posted Sunday on Politico discussed the trouble Democrats have had thus far in trying to raise money for anti-John McCain advertising.

Democrats set up the fundraising group "Fund for America" in order to change how "independent" attack ads are executed, as the party wanted to create a more permanent organization dedicated to supporting their candidates and trashing the other side. Therefore, instead of a 527 group, which became well-known as a category in 2004 for the impact "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" had in questioning John Kerry's Vietnam War service, this new Democratic group was created as a 501(c)(4) charity. This status allows the group to exist beyond this one election cycle, and it allows money they raise to carry over as well. "Fund for America," therefore, was set up as a central organization designed to raise as much money as possible for a concerted Democratic attack strategy against the Republicans, which will then be executed by the group "Campaign to Defend America." "Campaign to Defend America" will create and air the majority of "independent" Democratic attack ads in this election cycle, and their hope was to begin their efforts early on this year with a strong anti-John McCain push.

As the article mentions, everyone in politics and political advertising knows how crucial it is to define your opponent first before they get a chance to define themselves on their own terms. Painting McCain as a man tied too much to the policies of President Bush or the failed planning of the Iraq war might be effective campaign strategies later on this year and would make great campaign ads. The problem, however, has been that Democratic donors, for the most part, have been slow to come around to the idea that they need to be pouring their money into this group and its efforts this early on.

Democratic campaign donors, for the time being, are still transfixed on the race for their party's nomination, and therefore most money is still being poured into the efforts of either Clinton or Obama. The article mentions that there is growing frustration in the party that donors are not realizing the need to begin focusing on John McCain now, as the Democratic race appears to be somewhat heading toward a conclusion and McCain's polling is stronger than ever. Now is the time to begin attacking his character and record, the "Campaign to Defend America" argues, but the public and the big party donors have not yet turned their attention fully to the general election just yet. As one donor's representative stated, "We know we're going to have a good Democratic nominee — it's time for Democrats to turn their attention to John McCain."

Democrats wanted to "drop the hammer" on John McCain right from the get go after he became the presumptive Republican nominee, as many regretted their handling of political ads in 2004, when the Republicans were much better at quickly and forcefully defining the opposition. But with fundraising efforts decidedly "mixed" thus far for this central Democratic attack group, they have only been able to create one prominent advertisement, entitled "McSame," and were able to air it in only a few relatively-inexpensive markets. They have begun testing their messages and potential ads among swing voters and focus groups, but their efforts have been limited much more so than they expected by a lack of sufficient funding from the party.

Democrats are having a hard time looking too far ahead beyond the current Clinton-Obama match up, it seems, despite the need to begin running against Republican John McCain. Anti-McCain research and message testing may be adequate for the time being, but with McCain polling about even with both Democratic candidates and his nomination competition entirely out of the way, McCain may begin to open a real lead over his opposition in the coming weeks as he stresses his strengths, values, and personal history. If Democrats want to win in November, they need to start supporting the "Fund for America" and "Campaign to Defend America" now, as their long term success may depend on how well they begin the general election debate.

Clinton's Superdelegate Lead Keeps On Shrinking

Obama has been picking up more superdelegates through recent state conventions and newly named add-on superdelegates. At demconwatch, they have Clinton up by 24 superdelegates.

Her presumptive win in Pennsylvania will be offset my Obama's predicted win in North Carolina. He's polling hire in NC than she is in PA. Both states offer several delegates with PA having more. I don't see the superdelegate trend changing anytime soon.

Clinton Strikes Again

It seems that we are heading into the fourth quarter of the Democratic Primaries and Senator Clinton has began with a new line of attack. Clinton has accused Obama and his supporters of attempting to stop votes by calling for Clinton to drop out of the race. In interviews in at least three states with upcoming primaries, Clinton has suggested that Obama and his backers want to keep those states from playing a role in selecting the party's primary nominee. Obama and his camp responded saying that Clinton's accusations are "completely laughable." They have also announced that they support Clinton staying in the race as long as she chooses while also recognizing the possible adverse effects it may have for the Democratic party in the General Election.

Clinton's attack is ridiculous. There is no substantiated proof behind it leaving her more vulnerable. The original goal of this offensive strategy was to make Obama look like he is discouraging democracy, a charge that is just unsupportable. Once again, Clinton is trying to surface her drowning campaign. While it is a typical campaign strategy for the candidate that is behind to attack the leading candidate, Clinton's remarks are helping Obama build his campaign. In this situation, Clinton is like a younger sibling making fun of an older sibling. Instead of getting all worked up like the younger sibling does when he or she gets made fun of, the older sibling laughs it off like it does not affect them. By not reacting as the younger sibling had hoped, the older sibling is able to further the younger sibling's frustration. I do not think this was the angle Obama's campaign had in mind, but when reading two articles about Clinton's newest strike against Obama, this is the picture that came to mind.

What do you think about these accusations? Are they founded or unfounded? Are these comments helping or hurting Clinton's campaign? Is Clinton holding on to a false hope?

For more information read the following articles:
MSNBC: Clinton: Obama wants to stop votes
CNN: Clinton accuses Obama of suppressing votes

It has lasted too long!

Last week, American media focused on Barack Obama’s relationship with Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Hillary Clinton’s loss of memory. I would like to come back on both events. As for Obama’s relationship with Rev. Wright, the sermons of the latter do not engaged the former and I think Senator Obama had the elegance to remain faithful to the one who has been his friend for years. As for Senator Clinton, things are a little bit different. Indeed, it appeared clearly that Hillary Clinton lied to people by stating that she put her life in danger in Bosnia while she was the First Lady.
Media focused on Clinton’s lie as it has shocked the morality expected from someone running for the presidential office. They also immediately drew conclusions from this lie, saying that Hillary Clinton may have lied for months on her experience.
As far as I am concerned, I think that this lie underscores a huge problem this primary is facing: it has lasted too long. Indeed, if the media focus on Rev. Wright sermons and on Hillary Clinton’s lie, it demonstrates first and foremost that the candidates are running out of arguments. They no longer know what to say to voters to convince them. In addition, I do think that voters do not expect anything more from the candidates; people know perfectly the arguments and the program that the candidates have been relentlessly repeating for more than a year. Hillary Clinton’s lie has pointed out that voters and the entire US democracy have nothing to win in such a long campaign.

This Is the Race that Never Ends

It goes on and on my friends...I know I'm not the only one that remembers the "Song that Never Ends" right? At first it is a fun jingle but very quickly it turns into a frustrating song with the same words over and over again and you just end up wishing the person/people singing would stop. Well this race is beginning to feel like that. Clinton announced yesterday that she will stay in the race until the Democratic Convention in July. Another 3 or 4 months of the same recycled arguments and discussions on TV and all over the blogs. This Democratic primary has been going on/covered for too long and I just wish it would end. Though I support Obama, frankly there is part of me that just wants whoever the Democratic nominee will be to get the nomination already so we can move on. The campaign coverage has been going on for over a year and I, among others, are getting bored. Can we just choose a nominee and move on to actually getting a Democrat elected to the White House? I know that this view is not what the primary, or even Democracy, should be about but so be it. After all, this is the song that never ends