CE Week #5: “Big issues loom in ‘08 election”
Chuck Raasch
Gannet News SService
September 28, 2007
As fall arrives in this long march to the White House, six aspects of the 2008 presidential campaign emerge that make it more historic and consequential than any election since at least 1980.
If you are a normal American, the campaign so far probably has been like elevator music – always in the background but never quite grabbing your attention as you focus on more pressing things.
But some attributes of this campaign already have been framed and are worth pondering as you start paying closer attention:
•Unless dramatic change occurs, this will be the first election since 1972 to take place during an unpopular war, although the historic comparisons are more akin to 1968. That year, Hubert Humphrey lost the White House for the Democrats despite breaking late on the war from President Lyndon Baines Johnson. Unless Ron Paul wins the GOP nomination in less than five months, the Republican candidate will start out on the defensive on Iraq, and the question will be how far he breaks from President Bush on Iraq. The Democrats are in a bigger state of flux on Iraq. Their presidential candidates have bigger differences on what the future course ought to be.
•This is the first election where a woman, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, is a leading contender for her party’s nomination and for the White House. But she is not just a gender trailblazer. As first lady, she was intricately involved in policy, providing executive-branch heft to her candidacy. But New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson trumps her on executive experience among Democrats. Ex-New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, both Republicans, also have more executive experience than Clinton.
•Americans must for the first time factor into their decisions the possibility and advisability of sending a relatively popular ex-president, Bill Clinton, back to the White House, albeit as first spouse. A little-explored part of this scenario – the dynasty factor – should not be overlooked. In a country founded by rejecting dynastic royalty, the possibility that the presidency could be in the hands of a Bush or Clinton for as many as 28 straight years, if Clinton wins, could be a big debate point in 2008.
•The election happens in the midst of an acrimonious and unresolved debate about immigration, a debate that is proxy for a larger, melting pot discussion about what it means to be an American in the 21st century. Immigration is also part of a broader debate about security in a world where borders are breaking down on trade, communications, travel and other facets of life.
•The election also comes during a period of extraordinary animosity in political discourse. One source of animosity is based on the inability of either party to establish a distinct majority in Congress, leading to intensely close elections every two years. Right now, the most likely decisive-victory scenario has Democrats winning the White House and capitalizing on opportunities in congressional elections to approach veto-proof majorities. But remember, Republicans rose from the depths of a bad 1992 defeat to just two years later having their best nonpresidential election in two generations.
•Lastly, this will be the longest presidential general election in history, with the concurrent possibility that there actually may be more states in play on Feb. 5 than on Nov. 4 next year. More than 20 states now plan to hold primaries on the climactic “Tsunami Tuesday,” and the nominees of both parties could be in place by the end of that day. In recent general elections, the presidency has been fought over roughly 15 “swing states,” detouring around such population giants as California, Illinois, and New York. All three states plan to have primaries on Feb. 5 and will be big prizes.
This last scenario raises a big question. Will the 2008 presidential contest drag on so long that the public, finally fed up with the permanent campaign, demands a return to a saner election calendar that the two national political parties have been unwilling, or unable, to deliver?
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://pkautzman.edublogs.org/2007/09/28/ce-week-5-big-issues-loom-in-08-election/trackback/
First.
The ‘dynasty’ factor.
This factor, though I’ll try not to simply regurgitate what it says, means that it’s possible that one family could be in control of our country for a very long time. Hillary Clinton, if elected, can run for 8 years as president–that is saying that she managed the benefit of winning a second term in office. Same as her husband. As the first spouse and such. I think this is a silly idea. It’s basically just scenario right? And it’s not like Bill will be in control again… if she’s elected. Hillary would be, in this case. But then what if her daughter decided to run? Not saying Chelsea will but the possibility is there. That’s kinda like having a monarchy–however the likelihood of this happening is so slim that I wonder why it even has a name.
Second.
I doubt we’ll ever come to a reasonable conclusion about the immigration issues. I mean, the debate itself isn’t as stalemate as say, abortion, (I pick on it because it’s the easiest example), but still. I mean come on.
Can’t we come up with SOMETHING?
Maybe we should have a deadline for the election/campaign, if they fear so much it’s going to go on forever.
Response to Kelsea Werner
First off, isn’t Clinton going with the saying that almost every other canadate has gone with, they are initiating change from the past few presidencys? The dynasty factor along with that fact I just mentioned does not mix too well. With her not only influencing Bill Clinton with some of his policies, and wanting to lead the country away from those policies, is that even possible? Also, Bill Clinton will have the opportunity (and he will take advantage of it) to influence her and her policies. This leaves no room for any change in policies from Bill Clinton’s presidency in my opinion. To me, her whole campaign based on starting a new era of change is quite dumb.
I believe that we will come to a reasonable conclution about the immigration issues. We will have to. This is a problem that will not go away and will only get bigger unless we do something about it. Everyone knows that just leaving the problem alone is not the solution, so we will be forced to avoid political gridlock, one way or another. It will probably end up with many people having to resort to the next best option.
In response to Zander.
Ok, let’s get things straight first. The President is President, and makes all the final decision. The first spouse is the first spouse and can just put in input no actually decision. No matter what, even if Hillary Clinton gets elected President I don’t think anything will change with that. Of course all Presidents in our history have gone to their wives or talked to their wives about things that were bugging them with the country and some policies they had to make. Husbands and wives are like two halves, they seek each other for advice. I don’t see how just because Hillary is President she can’t have a different policy than her Husband. They are not the same people. Yes, they may have the same views on a couple things, but I mean do your parents see eye to eye on everything. I think this whole dynasty this is absurd. Just because a Clinton is back in the White House doesn’t mean that we’re looking for a monarchy. All it means is that there’s a Clinton in the White House. I believe that Hillary is a strong person and will not let her husband, the first “gentleman”, run her presidency.
What a year it shall be.
I for one am not excited for the ad’s to start in full force by like May… Or sooner? Who knows what madness the campaigners will subject us to.
The end of the article talks about how after this election people might be so fed up with all the campaigning and early primaries they might demand we start later and become more uniform state to state, I agree. Having everyone voting at different times and having bigger states have more of a say than smaller states in who visits them and when isn’t really democracy at its best.
Now on to some issues discussed in the actual article.
1. Dynasty. The Clinton’s “dynasty” isn’t that exciting, in fact, I think it’s wonderful that there’s a husband supporting his wife in an adventure he’s already partaken in. Hillary has less experience than most of the other candidates and Wild Bill Clinton can help her catch up.
2. The war. Since this is the first election in quite some time that is being held at the same time as an unpopular war it’s going to be quite interesting to see how candidates handle that situation and how far they deviate from the current President. I’m guessing that in order to obtain more votes they’re going to stray as far as humanly possible from anything Bush might say.
3. Lastly immigration. Basically, no one has an answer for the current problem with immigration. So candidates are going to have to carefully tip-toe around the issue as not to lose any votes.
All-in-all it’s going to be a really, really long election and a lot of people are going to grow tired of it quite quickly.