Friday, June 13, 2008
F'07-S'08
Been meaning to put up these last few posts for awhile now... they're some of the articles I wrote for the Villanova Times over the course of last semester chronicling the 2008 presidential campaign as the primary season heated up. I wanted to "archive" them all here, even though I know that they're not all that relevant anymore; this way if I want to write anything on the gen election, it'll all be in one place- a method to the madness.
The Aftermath of the Pennsylvania Primary
It was almost two months ago that Clinton spokesman Doug Hattaway loudly declared, “Pennsylvania is the new Iowa”- and how right he was. Almost no one had predicted that the nation’s eye would be focused upon the Keystone State and its late April 22 Primary Day, but focus it did as Pennsylvania was swept up in a six week frenzy of political activity while untold millions were poured into the state. Senator Clinton’s campaign viewed Pennsylvania’s primary as a second opportunity; a chance to reclaim the victory that had slipped through her fingers so many months before in Iowa’s first-in-the-nation caucus. Senator Obama’s camp felt similarly as they eagerly awaited the chance to recreate his Cinderellaesque January 3rd victory in Iowa- the victory that triggered his meteoric rise to the top of the polls and established the Illinois Senator as a viable candidate. For each candidate, it was essentially a reprieve; one that would offer Senator Clinton occasion to re-establish her legitimacy as a contender just as surely as it would offer Senator Obama yet another chance to deliver that final fatal blow. Few people could predict what the coming weeks would hold in Pennsylvania, but perhaps Politico’s Ben Smith did it best when he noted that “if the local mores kept the race relatively genteel in Iowa, Philadelphia is known for no such compunction. Instead, Pennsylvania seems likely to be the theater for a grinding, drawn-out and increasingly bitter conflict.” And so it was.
I won’t recount the many controversies and allegations that have swirled in our state over the past few weeks- culminating in last week’s heated Democratic debate- as the race to the nomination has become increasingly bitter. Suffice it to say that both sides suffered at the hands of the other while campaigning here, and both camps are likely equally glad to be moving on to other states- even if they only hold more of the same. Pennsylvania’s role is finally over as Tuesday’s primary marked our final farewell to the candidates. But did it? Did the primary even change anything? Voters turned out in droves at polls across the state, but many are left wondering what the Pennsylvania results actually mean for the future of both campaigns. To better answer these questions, I turned to some of Villanova’s finest (who were among those that turned out to vote in Pennsylvania’s primary) to ask them their thoughts regarding Tuesday’s primary.
When I asked politically active freshman Amanda Hogan who she supported in Tuesday’s primary, she was effusive in her support for Mr. Obama. When I asked her why, her answer was simple: “he’s been a positive influence on politics,” she said. Though she was disappointed that Mr. Obama had not fared better in Tuesday’s primary (she was hoping for a surprise, stronger-than-expected showing for her candidate), she was confident that the primary results did not harm his bid for the nomination. Fellow Obama voter Kamaria O’Reagan agreed with Hogan’s assessment of the Pennsylvania primary, adding that she doesn’t “think it [the Pennsylvania primary] will determine if he [Obama] gets the nomination or not.” Sophomore Eileen Kim, however, felt otherwise. Like many voters across the country, she admitted that there were things that she did and didn’t like about both Democratic candidates. Ultimately, though, Kim opted for Senator Clinton. She said, “I want insurance that they [Clinton and Obama] will get things done, and I feel more confident in and trust her [Clinton] to do it.” Though voters such as Hogan and O’Reagan cite Mr. Obama’s eloquence and message of change as persuading them, it appears that for others like Kim, Mrs. Clinton’s experience and specific policy plans have proven to be the decisive factor. Not surprisingly, when I asked Kim if she thought the Pennsylvania primary mattered, her response again differed with that of Mr. Obama’s supporters. Said Kim, “I feel like in the end, Hillary will get the nomination… it’s leading that way and everyone keeps waiting for something drastic to happen to change things up.” Based on the students that I talked to, it appears that there is no consensus among voters concerning how much (or how little) Tuesday’s primary results mattered.
Hoping for a decisive answer and a different perspective, I posed the question to a few of Villanova’s resident academics to hear their thoughts concerning Pennsylvania’s primary. First up was presidency scholar Dr. David Barrett. Like some of the above students, Dr. Barrett also cast his ballot for Senator Obama in Tuesday’s Democratic primary, saying “he’s unusually articulate and has a good way with people… and is very calm mannered.” Concerning the primary, Dr. Barrett acknowledged that it was a good win for Senator Clinton; he expected her to have a smaller margin of victory, he said, but nonetheless does not think that Mrs. Clinton will be able to catch up to Mr. Obama, particularly after North Carolina. Dr. Barrett touched upon the negativity surrounding the two campaigns in Pennsylvania, and noted that it would likely hurt the Democratic Party’s chances in November’s general election. Elections scholar Dr. Lara Brown, however, respectfully disagreed. Dr. Brown also voted in Pennsylvania on Tuesday- but unlike Dr. Barrett, Dr. Brown voted for Senator Clinton. Dr. Brown noted that the numbers that have been publicized by the media “are soft; the two candidates are about equal in a 50-50 race because the big picture is that they’re tied.” She elaborated that, “Pennsylvania gave Hillary enough credibility to keep going- a new lease on life- and even though it didn’t change anything, it could be a turning point if she capitalizes upon it.” Indeed, this momentum that Dr. Brown refers to already appears to be manifesting itself financially as Mrs. Clinton’s campaign reported today that it had raised an impressive ten million dollars in the 24 hours following the primary returns.
If nothing else, it is clear that the Pennsylvania primary results raise questions. With Tuesday’s primary being hailed as a decisive victory by Mrs. Clinton’s campaign while being characterized as too little too late by Mr. Obama’s campaign, its significance is undeniable. Indeed, when all is said and done, it’s all relative; relative to the campaigns, relative to the pundits, and perhaps most of all relative to the constituents in the states that have yet to vote.
I won’t recount the many controversies and allegations that have swirled in our state over the past few weeks- culminating in last week’s heated Democratic debate- as the race to the nomination has become increasingly bitter. Suffice it to say that both sides suffered at the hands of the other while campaigning here, and both camps are likely equally glad to be moving on to other states- even if they only hold more of the same. Pennsylvania’s role is finally over as Tuesday’s primary marked our final farewell to the candidates. But did it? Did the primary even change anything? Voters turned out in droves at polls across the state, but many are left wondering what the Pennsylvania results actually mean for the future of both campaigns. To better answer these questions, I turned to some of Villanova’s finest (who were among those that turned out to vote in Pennsylvania’s primary) to ask them their thoughts regarding Tuesday’s primary.
When I asked politically active freshman Amanda Hogan who she supported in Tuesday’s primary, she was effusive in her support for Mr. Obama. When I asked her why, her answer was simple: “he’s been a positive influence on politics,” she said. Though she was disappointed that Mr. Obama had not fared better in Tuesday’s primary (she was hoping for a surprise, stronger-than-expected showing for her candidate), she was confident that the primary results did not harm his bid for the nomination. Fellow Obama voter Kamaria O’Reagan agreed with Hogan’s assessment of the Pennsylvania primary, adding that she doesn’t “think it [the Pennsylvania primary] will determine if he [Obama] gets the nomination or not.” Sophomore Eileen Kim, however, felt otherwise. Like many voters across the country, she admitted that there were things that she did and didn’t like about both Democratic candidates. Ultimately, though, Kim opted for Senator Clinton. She said, “I want insurance that they [Clinton and Obama] will get things done, and I feel more confident in and trust her [Clinton] to do it.” Though voters such as Hogan and O’Reagan cite Mr. Obama’s eloquence and message of change as persuading them, it appears that for others like Kim, Mrs. Clinton’s experience and specific policy plans have proven to be the decisive factor. Not surprisingly, when I asked Kim if she thought the Pennsylvania primary mattered, her response again differed with that of Mr. Obama’s supporters. Said Kim, “I feel like in the end, Hillary will get the nomination… it’s leading that way and everyone keeps waiting for something drastic to happen to change things up.” Based on the students that I talked to, it appears that there is no consensus among voters concerning how much (or how little) Tuesday’s primary results mattered.
Hoping for a decisive answer and a different perspective, I posed the question to a few of Villanova’s resident academics to hear their thoughts concerning Pennsylvania’s primary. First up was presidency scholar Dr. David Barrett. Like some of the above students, Dr. Barrett also cast his ballot for Senator Obama in Tuesday’s Democratic primary, saying “he’s unusually articulate and has a good way with people… and is very calm mannered.” Concerning the primary, Dr. Barrett acknowledged that it was a good win for Senator Clinton; he expected her to have a smaller margin of victory, he said, but nonetheless does not think that Mrs. Clinton will be able to catch up to Mr. Obama, particularly after North Carolina. Dr. Barrett touched upon the negativity surrounding the two campaigns in Pennsylvania, and noted that it would likely hurt the Democratic Party’s chances in November’s general election. Elections scholar Dr. Lara Brown, however, respectfully disagreed. Dr. Brown also voted in Pennsylvania on Tuesday- but unlike Dr. Barrett, Dr. Brown voted for Senator Clinton. Dr. Brown noted that the numbers that have been publicized by the media “are soft; the two candidates are about equal in a 50-50 race because the big picture is that they’re tied.” She elaborated that, “Pennsylvania gave Hillary enough credibility to keep going- a new lease on life- and even though it didn’t change anything, it could be a turning point if she capitalizes upon it.” Indeed, this momentum that Dr. Brown refers to already appears to be manifesting itself financially as Mrs. Clinton’s campaign reported today that it had raised an impressive ten million dollars in the 24 hours following the primary returns.
If nothing else, it is clear that the Pennsylvania primary results raise questions. With Tuesday’s primary being hailed as a decisive victory by Mrs. Clinton’s campaign while being characterized as too little too late by Mr. Obama’s campaign, its significance is undeniable. Indeed, when all is said and done, it’s all relative; relative to the campaigns, relative to the pundits, and perhaps most of all relative to the constituents in the states that have yet to vote.
Real Time Experience at the Philadelphia Debate
“Clinton vs. Obama: The Democratic Debate.” That was what my press credentials read last Wednesday night; that’s right- my very own press credentials! As the April 16 Democratic debate loomed, I expected to watch it in much the same way that I’d watched all of the other Democratic debates, Republican debates, primary returns, and everything in between during this marathon 2008 presidential election campaign: curled up on my bed in my tiny hole of a room on Austin’s stifling third floor. I was more than a little excited at the prospect of the much-hyped debate being held in nearby Philadelphia, and in honor of the occasion I even considered leaving my hobbit hole to watch the debate with other like-minded friends. Little did I know, however, that I would have the opportunity to actually attend Wednesday night’s live debate. It happened in a flash; one minute I was applying for debate press credentials (convinced that I’d be refused on the grounds that our humble Villanova Times didn’t constitute a legitimate newspaper), and the next I was emailing my Social Security Number to the ABC organizers in order to allow the Secret Service to grant me access to the Constitution Center (I’m still not convinced that I wasn’t the victim of identity theft at the hands of ABC News that night). Needless to say, last Wednesday at 6:17 I was officially en route from Villanova to Philadelphia. Upon arriving at the Constitution Center a short while later, Times editor Matt and I were met outside the venue by an exuberant crowd filled with Clinton supporters, Obama supporters, and even a respectable smattering of proud Paulies (the loyal legion of Ron Paul supporters). While wading through the enthusiastic crowd three times over until successfully breaching the Constitution Center’s press entrance, one thing became clear: both the Clinton and Obama supporters were expecting strong showings from their respective candidates. Their excitement was contagious, and with our crowd navigation complete, we then proceeded into the press filing room.
To get an idea of the filing room, picture this: a huge Bartley room with seemingly endless rows of long tables, all of which were littered with papers, abandoned laptops, and dinner remnants (did I mention there was free food?). In addition, there were monitors lining the walls that would simultaneously broadcast feed from the debate that was occurring in the hall just a few hundred feet from us. There was an obvious social hierarchy within the filing room, and despite the fact that we were relegated to the front of the room (totally oblivious to the hustle and bustle that went on behind us), I could barely contain my excitement at having successfully infiltrated the Democratic debate. My joy faded somewhat as the temperature slipped to what felt like a crisp thirty degrees (I wasn’t fazed- I knew they were just trying to keep us on our toes), but I took it like a champ and settled in with my Villanova issued laptop to enjoy the bloodbath. The only thing that could have enhanced my filing room experience would have been if the candidates were faced with tough questions about recent campaign gaffes that occurred since the last debate, and alas- I was soon rewarded as Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos stepped up to the plate and pressed the candidates for real answers. But the fun was far from over. For not only did my press pass grant me access to the filing room, but also to what I would soon discover was the best place a political junkie could ever hope to go: the coveted spin room.
The spin room, quite literally, had me spinning. When we first entered the spin room (read: the best place on earth), I was taken aback by how small it was and by the low key atmosphere within it. This quickly changed as the broadcast media charged in, however, and all of a sudden I found myself engaged in a fast, silent, and furious war of wills with a determinedly pushy cameraman. Having lost the battle and been shafted to the side, I did my best to gather my dignity and listened with interest to the spinner closest to me. He was one of Clinton’s spin boys- that much was made clear by the “Senator Clinton” sign held above him- and he was relaxed and patient as he answered the rapid-fire questions that were hurled his way. Powerfully soft-spoken and admirably succinct, he discarded questions quickly yet positively as he spun for Hillary- and as a satisfied reporter asked him to spell his name before turning away to descend upon another unsuspecting spinner, I was startled to hear him spell, “G-A-R-I-N.” Garin? As in Geoff Garin? The guy that I’d been reading about on a daily basis as I trawled through the political blogosphere for my regular campaign updates? It was only at that moment that it finally dawned on me: this was the big time.
Now thoroughly engrossed (and thoroughly unaware of what I was doing), I seized upon a rare lull in the dialogue and sprung a question that I’d been wondering about. As he answered, I was unable to stop the spread of a wide smile across my face; at this point, I didn’t care that I was giving myself away as that stereotypical “new kid”- this was just too cool! After his answer, I realized that I could counter with a follow-up question… and after that, there was no stopping me. As we moved about the room, I was amazed at the people that I saw; in addition to Garin, we soon recognized Howard Wolfson, David Axelrod, Wesley Clark, Duncan Nutter, and Patrick Murphy among others. These were all players spinning for either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama, and they were all people that I was allowed to speak to and ask questions of (which I first shyly, then more comfortably, did). For the first time, it was there in that awesome spin room that everything I had been reading about, learning about, and absorbing came alive to me. It was almost unfathomable that these powerful people who were so abstract just hours before now were suddenly mere feet from me. It was, undoubtedly, one of the best experiences of my life. As I stood there and soaked up all that was happening around me, I found myself in a surreal state of serendipity. For it was there that I could most potently (and perhaps most ironically) detect a genuine desire to better America. Yes; Clinton’s people worked busily to enhance her public image and views, just as Obama’s people did the same for him. But in that room, the aura of commitment to a common cause of betterment was undeniable. It gave me hope yet for this 2008 election- and for that, I am eternally grateful.
To get an idea of the filing room, picture this: a huge Bartley room with seemingly endless rows of long tables, all of which were littered with papers, abandoned laptops, and dinner remnants (did I mention there was free food?). In addition, there were monitors lining the walls that would simultaneously broadcast feed from the debate that was occurring in the hall just a few hundred feet from us. There was an obvious social hierarchy within the filing room, and despite the fact that we were relegated to the front of the room (totally oblivious to the hustle and bustle that went on behind us), I could barely contain my excitement at having successfully infiltrated the Democratic debate. My joy faded somewhat as the temperature slipped to what felt like a crisp thirty degrees (I wasn’t fazed- I knew they were just trying to keep us on our toes), but I took it like a champ and settled in with my Villanova issued laptop to enjoy the bloodbath. The only thing that could have enhanced my filing room experience would have been if the candidates were faced with tough questions about recent campaign gaffes that occurred since the last debate, and alas- I was soon rewarded as Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos stepped up to the plate and pressed the candidates for real answers. But the fun was far from over. For not only did my press pass grant me access to the filing room, but also to what I would soon discover was the best place a political junkie could ever hope to go: the coveted spin room.
The spin room, quite literally, had me spinning. When we first entered the spin room (read: the best place on earth), I was taken aback by how small it was and by the low key atmosphere within it. This quickly changed as the broadcast media charged in, however, and all of a sudden I found myself engaged in a fast, silent, and furious war of wills with a determinedly pushy cameraman. Having lost the battle and been shafted to the side, I did my best to gather my dignity and listened with interest to the spinner closest to me. He was one of Clinton’s spin boys- that much was made clear by the “Senator Clinton” sign held above him- and he was relaxed and patient as he answered the rapid-fire questions that were hurled his way. Powerfully soft-spoken and admirably succinct, he discarded questions quickly yet positively as he spun for Hillary- and as a satisfied reporter asked him to spell his name before turning away to descend upon another unsuspecting spinner, I was startled to hear him spell, “G-A-R-I-N.” Garin? As in Geoff Garin? The guy that I’d been reading about on a daily basis as I trawled through the political blogosphere for my regular campaign updates? It was only at that moment that it finally dawned on me: this was the big time.
Now thoroughly engrossed (and thoroughly unaware of what I was doing), I seized upon a rare lull in the dialogue and sprung a question that I’d been wondering about. As he answered, I was unable to stop the spread of a wide smile across my face; at this point, I didn’t care that I was giving myself away as that stereotypical “new kid”- this was just too cool! After his answer, I realized that I could counter with a follow-up question… and after that, there was no stopping me. As we moved about the room, I was amazed at the people that I saw; in addition to Garin, we soon recognized Howard Wolfson, David Axelrod, Wesley Clark, Duncan Nutter, and Patrick Murphy among others. These were all players spinning for either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama, and they were all people that I was allowed to speak to and ask questions of (which I first shyly, then more comfortably, did). For the first time, it was there in that awesome spin room that everything I had been reading about, learning about, and absorbing came alive to me. It was almost unfathomable that these powerful people who were so abstract just hours before now were suddenly mere feet from me. It was, undoubtedly, one of the best experiences of my life. As I stood there and soaked up all that was happening around me, I found myself in a surreal state of serendipity. For it was there that I could most potently (and perhaps most ironically) detect a genuine desire to better America. Yes; Clinton’s people worked busily to enhance her public image and views, just as Obama’s people did the same for him. But in that room, the aura of commitment to a common cause of betterment was undeniable. It gave me hope yet for this 2008 election- and for that, I am eternally grateful.
Why Hillary Should Stay in the Race Amidst Calls for Withdrawal
“DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN!” So screamed the headline of the Chicago Tribune on November 3, 1948 following the presidential election. As the more astute readers are undoubtedly aware, Thomas Dewey did not, in fact, defeat thirty-third President Harry Truman in his bid for re-election. The Chicago Tribune’s headline was premature as it declared a victory that had not yet (nor would it ever) come to pass.
You might rightly be wondering why, in the midst of this exciting and historic 2008 presidential campaign, I am calling attention to the Chicago Tribune’s now infamous faux pas. My point is that America- a country so steeped in history- appears to be suffering from some type of short term memory loss in that it has not learned from the lessons of the Chicago Tribune. For as surely as President Truman defeated Mr. Dewey in 1948, this presidential race is far from over. So why exactly is it that the public is clamoring for Senator Clinton to exit the race?
The simple reason is that most people seem to think that Mr. Obama has the Democratic nomination all but sewn up. They believe that by staying in the race, Mrs. Clinton is simply trying to spite both Mr. Obama and the Democratic Party that has been so unforgiving towards her of late. But to believe this is to grossly underestimate what is at stake for Senators Clinton, McCain, and Obama; because each of the candidates is currently embroiled in a three-way fight for arguably the most powerful office in the world- the presidency of the United States in America. General opinion tends to hold that Mrs. Clinton has been waiting a very long time for this opportunity, and now she technically has a one-in-three (that’s 33.3%) chance of being the next president. Mrs. Clinton, Mr. McCain, and Mr. Obama each have a legitimate chance of achieving this goal. So how can you fairly ask someone in that position- someone who is so close- to give that up?
Quite frankly, you can’t. Both Democrats and Republicans should support her decision to remain in the race not because they agree with her ideology or because of strategy, but because calls for her to withdraw from the race are as premature as the Chicago Tribune was in calling the election of 1948 for Mr. Dewey. Yes, Mrs. Clinton has the odds against her; she is currently trailing Mr. Obama in both the popular vote and soft pledged delegates tally. But in the last two centuries of American history, stranger things have happened. Just look at the still ongoing 2008 presidential election campaign alone for proof of that. Mr. McCain’s campaign bounced back from long-shot odds and near-bankruptcy. Mr. Obama’s campaign recovered from the Reverend Jeremiah Wright scandal. Mrs. Clinton’s campaign has withstood the recent tests of the Bosnia lie and prominent staff shakeups among other things. As the media reports it, Mrs. Clinton may now look like a long shot. But as strategist Bob Shrum is quick to note, “a long shot isn’t the same as no shot at all.”
Democrats do not like the fact that the longer Mrs. Clinton remains in the race, the tougher the party’s road to the presidency becomes. But alas- such is the price we pay for living in a republic where the votes of all people matter. On a recent episode of “The Ellen Show,” Mrs. Clinton stated that she would not quit the race because “this country’s worth fighting for.” One need not agree with Mrs. Clinton’s politics in order to acknowledge that this is the notion that a commander in chief should embody. What if it were Mr. Obama in Mrs. Clinton’s position- would he still face pressure to drop out? What if it was Mr. McCain who had fewer delegates than Mr. Romney but was still within reach of overtaking him- would he be asked to quit? The odds that Mrs. Clinton now faces are not desirable, but they are surmountable. If she or any other candidate has a chance at the presidency within reach and is willing to fight for it, then let her. I don’t know that Mrs. Clinton deserves the Democratic nomination any more than Mr. Obama does. But I do know that she deserves the right to fight to the end. And the American public should not accept anything less than that from any candidate who aspires to be our commander in chief.
You might rightly be wondering why, in the midst of this exciting and historic 2008 presidential campaign, I am calling attention to the Chicago Tribune’s now infamous faux pas. My point is that America- a country so steeped in history- appears to be suffering from some type of short term memory loss in that it has not learned from the lessons of the Chicago Tribune. For as surely as President Truman defeated Mr. Dewey in 1948, this presidential race is far from over. So why exactly is it that the public is clamoring for Senator Clinton to exit the race?
The simple reason is that most people seem to think that Mr. Obama has the Democratic nomination all but sewn up. They believe that by staying in the race, Mrs. Clinton is simply trying to spite both Mr. Obama and the Democratic Party that has been so unforgiving towards her of late. But to believe this is to grossly underestimate what is at stake for Senators Clinton, McCain, and Obama; because each of the candidates is currently embroiled in a three-way fight for arguably the most powerful office in the world- the presidency of the United States in America. General opinion tends to hold that Mrs. Clinton has been waiting a very long time for this opportunity, and now she technically has a one-in-three (that’s 33.3%) chance of being the next president. Mrs. Clinton, Mr. McCain, and Mr. Obama each have a legitimate chance of achieving this goal. So how can you fairly ask someone in that position- someone who is so close- to give that up?
Quite frankly, you can’t. Both Democrats and Republicans should support her decision to remain in the race not because they agree with her ideology or because of strategy, but because calls for her to withdraw from the race are as premature as the Chicago Tribune was in calling the election of 1948 for Mr. Dewey. Yes, Mrs. Clinton has the odds against her; she is currently trailing Mr. Obama in both the popular vote and soft pledged delegates tally. But in the last two centuries of American history, stranger things have happened. Just look at the still ongoing 2008 presidential election campaign alone for proof of that. Mr. McCain’s campaign bounced back from long-shot odds and near-bankruptcy. Mr. Obama’s campaign recovered from the Reverend Jeremiah Wright scandal. Mrs. Clinton’s campaign has withstood the recent tests of the Bosnia lie and prominent staff shakeups among other things. As the media reports it, Mrs. Clinton may now look like a long shot. But as strategist Bob Shrum is quick to note, “a long shot isn’t the same as no shot at all.”
Democrats do not like the fact that the longer Mrs. Clinton remains in the race, the tougher the party’s road to the presidency becomes. But alas- such is the price we pay for living in a republic where the votes of all people matter. On a recent episode of “The Ellen Show,” Mrs. Clinton stated that she would not quit the race because “this country’s worth fighting for.” One need not agree with Mrs. Clinton’s politics in order to acknowledge that this is the notion that a commander in chief should embody. What if it were Mr. Obama in Mrs. Clinton’s position- would he still face pressure to drop out? What if it was Mr. McCain who had fewer delegates than Mr. Romney but was still within reach of overtaking him- would he be asked to quit? The odds that Mrs. Clinton now faces are not desirable, but they are surmountable. If she or any other candidate has a chance at the presidency within reach and is willing to fight for it, then let her. I don’t know that Mrs. Clinton deserves the Democratic nomination any more than Mr. Obama does. But I do know that she deserves the right to fight to the end. And the American public should not accept anything less than that from any candidate who aspires to be our commander in chief.
Pennsylvania Primary Approaches
How ironic is it that the DNC’s worst nightmare has become Pennsylvania’s good fortune? Hats off to the Keystone state, I say. Because in recent weeks it has become clear that Pennsylvania is one of the few and the proud, in that it remains one of the last vestiges of how the primary system was actually supposed to work.
Over the last few decades, primaries have largely served the purpose of opening up the electoral process. Though they have opened up the process, however, they have also simultaneously closed it off for many voters. Take, for instance, the deluge of states that held primaries or caucuses on this year’s “Super Tuesday”: on February 5, 2008, 24 different states selected their candidates from both the Republican and Democratic parties (with the exception of the five states that only chose from one party’s candidates). So this means that on a single day, almost half of the fifty states that comprise the United States of America voted to select each major party’s nominee for President. It was a classic instance of the primary system’s greatest flaw: frontloading, which is when each state keeps moving its primary/caucus up earlier and earlier. The states do this because in theory, the earlier that a state holds its primary or caucus, the more power it will have over choosing who will be the nominees. So each state is essentially trying to exert the same amount of weight that Iowa and New Hampshire do as the nation’s first caucus and primary, respectively.
The national parties are fine with this; the sooner they know their nominees, the sooner they can start discrediting the other side. So if a party can decide its nominee a whole six months before the actual nominating Convention, it just gives them more time to get ready for the general election. It worked fine for the Republicans, seeing as Senator John McCain emerged the presumptive nominee following Super Tuesday, although it didn’t help the Democrats considering that the two major nominees, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, are still left to fight for the nomination (in Villanova’s own state of Pennsylvania, no less). But maybe what’s best for the parties isn’t actually what’s best for the voters. If the primaries and caucuses were spread out more, the voters would have more options. Who knows; it’s possible that if the primaries and caucuses were spread further apart between the months of February and August, the outcome would have been entirely different. A big factor concerning the candidates is momentum; it’s why Mr. Obama was so confident after Super Tuesday, and it’s why Mrs. Clinton had an upswing after Ohio and Texas. Maybe, though, if the Super Tuesday states spread their nominations out, Mr. Romney or Mr. Huckabee would have gained enough momentum to continue to battle Mr. McCain (as the Democrats currently are) or even to beat him.
Even better, spreading out the primaries and caucuses would make the candidates focus on more of the states. Right now, frontloading prevents candidates from focusing everywhere. True, smaller states with fewer delegates probably still wouldn’t get a whole lot of attention, but maybe if a small state had the only primary/caucus that week, a candidate would focus on it, hoping for a momentum boost. Just look at Pennsylvania now; it’s getting the attention that it finally deserves. Recently, Mr. Obama has come out and said that he would consider coming within ten points of Mrs. Clinton in Pennsylvania to be a big win. But by downplaying the importance of the Keystone state, he is not giving it the credit it deserves- because the reality is that Pennsylvania is important. Now in the midst of the primary season, it can either secure Mr. Obama the nomination or lend credence to Mrs. Clinton’s claim that she has been winning all the big states and is more electable. And further down the road, in the general election it offers 21 electoral votes and is a key swing state. So why shouldn’t it get the attention that it deserves now in the primary season? Were the nomination sewed up before now, much like it was for the Republicans, Pennsylvania would be a formality; a publicity stop en route to the Conventions. However, now it gets the chance that it deserves, and the candidates are forced to campaign and focus on the issues that matter here. By holding such a late primary, Pennsylvania would typically lose out on deciding who the major party candidates for president would be. But finally, Pennsylvania’s respect for the process pays off and it receives the same focus that Iowa and New Hampshire do- the focus that all states should have; the focus that it rightfully deserves.
Over the last few decades, primaries have largely served the purpose of opening up the electoral process. Though they have opened up the process, however, they have also simultaneously closed it off for many voters. Take, for instance, the deluge of states that held primaries or caucuses on this year’s “Super Tuesday”: on February 5, 2008, 24 different states selected their candidates from both the Republican and Democratic parties (with the exception of the five states that only chose from one party’s candidates). So this means that on a single day, almost half of the fifty states that comprise the United States of America voted to select each major party’s nominee for President. It was a classic instance of the primary system’s greatest flaw: frontloading, which is when each state keeps moving its primary/caucus up earlier and earlier. The states do this because in theory, the earlier that a state holds its primary or caucus, the more power it will have over choosing who will be the nominees. So each state is essentially trying to exert the same amount of weight that Iowa and New Hampshire do as the nation’s first caucus and primary, respectively.
The national parties are fine with this; the sooner they know their nominees, the sooner they can start discrediting the other side. So if a party can decide its nominee a whole six months before the actual nominating Convention, it just gives them more time to get ready for the general election. It worked fine for the Republicans, seeing as Senator John McCain emerged the presumptive nominee following Super Tuesday, although it didn’t help the Democrats considering that the two major nominees, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, are still left to fight for the nomination (in Villanova’s own state of Pennsylvania, no less). But maybe what’s best for the parties isn’t actually what’s best for the voters. If the primaries and caucuses were spread out more, the voters would have more options. Who knows; it’s possible that if the primaries and caucuses were spread further apart between the months of February and August, the outcome would have been entirely different. A big factor concerning the candidates is momentum; it’s why Mr. Obama was so confident after Super Tuesday, and it’s why Mrs. Clinton had an upswing after Ohio and Texas. Maybe, though, if the Super Tuesday states spread their nominations out, Mr. Romney or Mr. Huckabee would have gained enough momentum to continue to battle Mr. McCain (as the Democrats currently are) or even to beat him.
Even better, spreading out the primaries and caucuses would make the candidates focus on more of the states. Right now, frontloading prevents candidates from focusing everywhere. True, smaller states with fewer delegates probably still wouldn’t get a whole lot of attention, but maybe if a small state had the only primary/caucus that week, a candidate would focus on it, hoping for a momentum boost. Just look at Pennsylvania now; it’s getting the attention that it finally deserves. Recently, Mr. Obama has come out and said that he would consider coming within ten points of Mrs. Clinton in Pennsylvania to be a big win. But by downplaying the importance of the Keystone state, he is not giving it the credit it deserves- because the reality is that Pennsylvania is important. Now in the midst of the primary season, it can either secure Mr. Obama the nomination or lend credence to Mrs. Clinton’s claim that she has been winning all the big states and is more electable. And further down the road, in the general election it offers 21 electoral votes and is a key swing state. So why shouldn’t it get the attention that it deserves now in the primary season? Were the nomination sewed up before now, much like it was for the Republicans, Pennsylvania would be a formality; a publicity stop en route to the Conventions. However, now it gets the chance that it deserves, and the candidates are forced to campaign and focus on the issues that matter here. By holding such a late primary, Pennsylvania would typically lose out on deciding who the major party candidates for president would be. But finally, Pennsylvania’s respect for the process pays off and it receives the same focus that Iowa and New Hampshire do- the focus that all states should have; the focus that it rightfully deserves.
Implications of 08 Candidates on the Judiciary
Despite the fact that the primary battle for the Democratic nomination is still ongoing, several pundits have turned their attention to the future, ignoring even the upcoming general election season as they look ahead to what we can expect from each of the potential nominees should they ascend to the presidency. Among the issues that are being examined is the potential for Supreme Court vacancies during the next President’s term and how these vacancies would be filled by Senators McCain, Clinton, and Obama should one of them have the opportunity to nominate a judge (or multiple judges) to the High Court.
Since becoming the presumptive nominee for the Republican party, Senator John McCain has been waging an uphill battle with the more conservative wing of his party as he has fought to convince Republicans that he will champion the party’s causes if elected President. As Mr. McCain addressed the influential Conservative Political Action Conference in February of this year, he promised “to nominate judges who have proven themselves worthy of our trust that they take as their sole responsibility the enforcement of laws made by the people's elected representatives, judges of the character and quality of Justices Roberts and Alito, judges who can be relied upon to respect the values of the people whose rights, laws and property they are sworn to defend.” Though many were skeptical of Mr. McCain’s words, it appears that the concerns of many conservatives concerning a potential McCain Supreme Court are unfounded. Despite his oftentimes middle-of-the-road voting record in the Senate, Mr. McCain boasts a firmly conservative voting record when it comes to Supreme Court nominees. Indeed, throughout his lengthy career as a Senator, Mr. McCain has voted time and time again to confirm Republican nominees, from the recent Justices Samuel Alito and John Roberts to President George H. W. Bush’s controversial nominations of Clarence Thomas and (the failed) Robert Bork. In fact, according to journalist Doug Kendall, Mr. McCain has voted to confirm every Republican judicial nominee throughout his tenure in the Senate. Thus it appears that the Senator is serious about maintaining the standard of judicial restraint on the High Court as he reiterated on a recent episode of “Hannity and Colmes” that his favorite justice remains Chief Justice John Roberts because “the important thing is nominate judges who have a strict interpretation of the Constitution of the United States.”
Conversely, it appears that a Supreme Court laden with judges nominated by Senator Barack Obama would likely swing in the opposite direction. Per Edward Whelan of The Weekly Standard, “[Senator Obama] has already established a record on judicial nominations and constitutional law that comports with his 2007 ranking by the National Journal as the most liberal of all 100 senators.” For as ardently as Mr. McCain has supported conservative nominees to the bench, Mr. Obama has opposed them. When discussing the type of qualities that he looks for in a justice, Mr. Obama declared, “we need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old--and that's the criterion by which I'll be selecting my judges.” It is clear then that Mr. Obama subscribes to the judicial activism approach of interpreting the Constitution as being a “living document.” This notion has been reinforced in Mr. Obama’s voting record, even as he has encountered opposition within his own party as he has worked to block numerous appointees by current President George W. Bush. It would seem then that should Mr. Obama secure the presidency, he would look to appoint judges that embrace his philosophy that the Constitution should, in his own words, “be read in the context of an ever-changing world.”
Senator Hillary Clinton seems to hold a view similar to that of Mr. Obama concerning judicial nominees. Though she has not publicly spoken as much as Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama have on matters related to federal and Supreme Court judges, Mrs. Clinton has come out and proclaimed that, "as President, I will promote policies and judicial nominees who will uphold our constitutional liberties. I will lead us on a different course, one that affirmatively promotes women's health and well-being." Going along with this, it appears that more than anything else, Mrs. Clinton feels strongly about 1963’s landmark Roe v. Wade decision as she has stated, “when I'm President, I will appoint judges to our courts who understand that Roe v. Wade isn't just binding legal precedent, it is the touchstone of our reproductive freedom, the embodiment of our most fundamental rights, and no one - no judge, no governor, no Senator, no President - has the right to take it away.” Like her colleague Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton also voted against confirming Justices Alito and Roberts to the Supreme Court. Should Mrs. Clinton assume the presidency and follow a pattern similar to that of her husband, President Clinton- who nominated judicial activists Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Court in 1993 and Stephen Breyer in 1994- or should Mr. Obama become president, it is likely that many Court rulings would shift towards adopting a “living document” view of the Constitution.
Regardless of who becomes the next president, he or she will likely have the opportunity to nominate a new justice to the Supreme Court. With five justices currently falling between the ages of 69 and 75 years old, and Justice John Paul Stevens (currently the second oldest judge to ever serve on the High Court, second only to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.) nearing age 88, it seems imminent that the next president will face at least one vacancy on the Court while in office. Furthermore, whoever becomes the next president is likely to be in a position to alter the current balance that exists within the Supreme Court. It will be interesting to observe what unfolds, particularly as the fine line between politics and the judiciary grows increasingly blurred.
Since becoming the presumptive nominee for the Republican party, Senator John McCain has been waging an uphill battle with the more conservative wing of his party as he has fought to convince Republicans that he will champion the party’s causes if elected President. As Mr. McCain addressed the influential Conservative Political Action Conference in February of this year, he promised “to nominate judges who have proven themselves worthy of our trust that they take as their sole responsibility the enforcement of laws made by the people's elected representatives, judges of the character and quality of Justices Roberts and Alito, judges who can be relied upon to respect the values of the people whose rights, laws and property they are sworn to defend.” Though many were skeptical of Mr. McCain’s words, it appears that the concerns of many conservatives concerning a potential McCain Supreme Court are unfounded. Despite his oftentimes middle-of-the-road voting record in the Senate, Mr. McCain boasts a firmly conservative voting record when it comes to Supreme Court nominees. Indeed, throughout his lengthy career as a Senator, Mr. McCain has voted time and time again to confirm Republican nominees, from the recent Justices Samuel Alito and John Roberts to President George H. W. Bush’s controversial nominations of Clarence Thomas and (the failed) Robert Bork. In fact, according to journalist Doug Kendall, Mr. McCain has voted to confirm every Republican judicial nominee throughout his tenure in the Senate. Thus it appears that the Senator is serious about maintaining the standard of judicial restraint on the High Court as he reiterated on a recent episode of “Hannity and Colmes” that his favorite justice remains Chief Justice John Roberts because “the important thing is nominate judges who have a strict interpretation of the Constitution of the United States.”
Conversely, it appears that a Supreme Court laden with judges nominated by Senator Barack Obama would likely swing in the opposite direction. Per Edward Whelan of The Weekly Standard, “[Senator Obama] has already established a record on judicial nominations and constitutional law that comports with his 2007 ranking by the National Journal as the most liberal of all 100 senators.” For as ardently as Mr. McCain has supported conservative nominees to the bench, Mr. Obama has opposed them. When discussing the type of qualities that he looks for in a justice, Mr. Obama declared, “we need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old--and that's the criterion by which I'll be selecting my judges.” It is clear then that Mr. Obama subscribes to the judicial activism approach of interpreting the Constitution as being a “living document.” This notion has been reinforced in Mr. Obama’s voting record, even as he has encountered opposition within his own party as he has worked to block numerous appointees by current President George W. Bush. It would seem then that should Mr. Obama secure the presidency, he would look to appoint judges that embrace his philosophy that the Constitution should, in his own words, “be read in the context of an ever-changing world.”
Senator Hillary Clinton seems to hold a view similar to that of Mr. Obama concerning judicial nominees. Though she has not publicly spoken as much as Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama have on matters related to federal and Supreme Court judges, Mrs. Clinton has come out and proclaimed that, "as President, I will promote policies and judicial nominees who will uphold our constitutional liberties. I will lead us on a different course, one that affirmatively promotes women's health and well-being." Going along with this, it appears that more than anything else, Mrs. Clinton feels strongly about 1963’s landmark Roe v. Wade decision as she has stated, “when I'm President, I will appoint judges to our courts who understand that Roe v. Wade isn't just binding legal precedent, it is the touchstone of our reproductive freedom, the embodiment of our most fundamental rights, and no one - no judge, no governor, no Senator, no President - has the right to take it away.” Like her colleague Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton also voted against confirming Justices Alito and Roberts to the Supreme Court. Should Mrs. Clinton assume the presidency and follow a pattern similar to that of her husband, President Clinton- who nominated judicial activists Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Court in 1993 and Stephen Breyer in 1994- or should Mr. Obama become president, it is likely that many Court rulings would shift towards adopting a “living document” view of the Constitution.
Regardless of who becomes the next president, he or she will likely have the opportunity to nominate a new justice to the Supreme Court. With five justices currently falling between the ages of 69 and 75 years old, and Justice John Paul Stevens (currently the second oldest judge to ever serve on the High Court, second only to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.) nearing age 88, it seems imminent that the next president will face at least one vacancy on the Court while in office. Furthermore, whoever becomes the next president is likely to be in a position to alter the current balance that exists within the Supreme Court. It will be interesting to observe what unfolds, particularly as the fine line between politics and the judiciary grows increasingly blurred.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)