Ready or Not?

Waubonsie Valley grad Nathan Dixon (Youth & Government, AP Government, Voice Columnist), a columnist for the Indiana (University) Daily Student says the idealism of political thought he had in the halls of WVHS, has been replaced by college pragmatism (or something like that).

In his column from yesterday, Dixon makes his case for why Barack Obama is not, and Hillary Clinton is ready to be president:
_____________


Obama isn’t ready
Nathan Dixon IDS Date: 1/30/2008

This certainly isn’t how I expected to feel about the Democratic presidential primary.

I remember the good old days, back in high school, when I would carry around my autographed copy of “The Audacity of Hope,” when I volunteered with Barack Obama’s campaign over the summer. After Obama finally announced he was going to run for president, I really felt like everything was going to be OK after all.

Unfortunately, dreams don’t last forever. Instead of campaigning for him in Iowa like I planned, I suddenly found myself “busy” with other things to do over winter break. I didn’t learn of the man’s victory in Iowa by being on the front line. Instead, I just got a call from my mom while I was driving home from Chicago. My shift toward Hillary probably started when I began to realize how shallow some of her critics (including the press) were, especially those who bash her in sexist ways. I am also not very impressed when I hear Obama supporters complain about Hillary’s policies; the two candidates’ policies are essentially the same on almost every major issue.

The actual differences between the two candidates, for now, hurt Obama. When it comes to being president, Mr. Obama is not a man with a particularly impressive resume.

The gap is particularly large when it comes to foreign policy. The man has some of the right ideas, especially when it comes to engaging our enemies more, but sometimes the devil is in the details. His comment about taking unilateral action in Pakistan was probably just made to make him sound tougher. Because he is unwilling to acknowledge how ridiculous it is to breach the sovereignty of a nuclear-armed and unstable Muslim country, it seems to have become his policy.

Hillary is clearly a woman of uncanny intelligence and drive. She has experience in government that dates back decades, plus she already has an extensive political apparatus in place. While Barack has tried to downplay Hillary’s experience as first lady, Mr. Obama is probably well-aware of how important a role Hillary played in her husband’s presidency.

Hillary Clinton certainly has her faults. She hasn’t campaigned in a way I would describe as particularly dignified. I have often gotten the feeling that she thought the primaries were supposed to serve merely as her coronation and even her greatest admirers should be able to admit that the last time she was in the White House, she made her fair share of mistakes.

There are times (too few lately) when I find Hillary just as likeable as Obama. It makes me wonder why she goes to such great lengths to be disingenuous. After some of her campaign’s recent attacks, Obama would be tough to resist if he came with better work experience. But, alas, Obama just isn’t ready.

Good thing I like the idea of electing the first woman president just as much as I like the idea of electing the first black one.
__________

Blog here, or at the column's IDS page to tell Nathan what you think.

http://www.idsnews.com/news/story.aspx?id=48539&comview=1

Early Voting: In or Out?

Supporters of former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, rally before a Democratic presidential debate at Cashman Center, January 15, 2008 in Las Vegas. On January 15, supporters of Edwards could have cast a ballot for the Feb. 5 Illinois primary. But on Wednesday, Edwards dropped out of the race.

According the the Associated Press, 7.2 million Illinoisans could vote in Tuesday's Illinois primary. Thousands already have cast their ballots.

CBS News reported on the new twist Early Voting has brought to this presidential election:

WASHINGTON (AP) ― For many people, the question this year isn't just which presidential candidate to vote for, it's when.

States have done backflips to make it easier for people to vote in advance of election day. Presidential candidates are turning cartwheels to lock in early votes. But in a campaign as volatile as this one, people have to decide whether it makes sense to vote too far ahead. The race is so unsettled that today's champ can be tomorrow's chump.

California, for example, is one of more than 20 states voting on Feb. 5. But people have been able to vote by mail since early January. That monthlong voting season is tantamount to a lifetime in this campaign.

Other Feb. 5 states where voting is under way include Arizona, Georgia, Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, Tennessee and Utah. Early voting in Florida, which holds its primary next Tuesday, began Jan. 14. As many as one-quarter of all ballots in the state typically are cast early.

In all, at least 32 states allow some form of no-excuse early voting, according to electionline.org.

Any vote that a candidate can secure early is precious, particularly when so many states are voting at once and campaigns are stretched thin. Many people like the convenience of voting early. But what about when the contest in both parties is so scrambled?

"The fluidity and uncertainty in the race would normally lead people to hold their ballots," said Paul Gronke, who directs the Early Voting Information Center at Reed College in Portland, Ore. "What is cutting in the other direction is that the campaigns are out there mobilizing people to vote early."

http://cbs2chicago.com/campaign08/early.voting.2008.2.636026.html

That fluidity gushed this week, when Rudy Giuliani and John Edwards dropped out of the race. They both have already recieived votes in Illinois, whose early voting ends today. Did the early voting for supporters of those two candidates effectively disenfranchise them?

The Democratic non-counted Florida primary also had a significant early voting effect. Hillary Clinton won the constest, where voting started as early as December. But Barack Obama won the majority of Democratic ballots cast up to the week before Tuesday's election day. A DuPage County election official told me that she projected in the next few years, "by far the majority of voters will come early. It's just more convienent that way."

The arguments for/against early voting are capsulized by ReformElections.org:

What are the advantages of early voting?

The primary argument in favor of early voting is that it increases turnout by making it easier to vote. Research by Curtis Gans shows that in the 24 states with no excuse absentee voting, turnout increased in 2004 in the aggregate by 6.7 percent, whereas it increased 6.2 percent for the other states. In the 11 states that had early voting in both 2002 and 2004, turnout increased by an aggregate average of 7.2 percentage points as opposed to 6.2 in states without early voting.

In addition to the statistical evidence, early voting is advocated by voting rights groups whose primary concern is making voting as convenient as possible for voters, because it gives them significantly more time to complete their ballots or go to the polls. Some election administrators also prefer early voting because it allows them more time to process ballots, relieves some of the strain on voting systems that occurs on Election Day, cuts down long lines, and reduces the number of poll workers needed.

What are some of the drawbacks of early voting?

The primary drawback of early voting is that mail-in ballots, which make up the large part of early voting, are much more susceptible to fraud than voting in which the voter must show up to the polls. Instances of fraud in which a ballot is stolen from a mailbox and filled out on behalf of a voter, or in which a voter is pressured to vote a certain way, are much more difficult to prosecute away from the polling place.

In addition, the evidence that shows that early voting increases turnout is countered by evidence from earlier elections—1996 and 1988—that shows larger decreases in turnout in states with early voting than in states without it. This research suggests that the voters who make use of early voting are already politicized enough that they would turn out even if early voting were not an option.

Depending on how early voters are allowed to cast their ballots, they could be casting their votes based on different information than the people who are voting on Election Day. Important events sometimes occur days before the election that can significantly influence how people vote.

Candidates could even conceivably manipulate events at different times in order to influence groups voting at different times. Some objections pertain specifically to mail-in ballots as well. In the 2004 election, thousands of ballots were lost in the mail in South Florida alone, a phenomenon which received less press but occurred throughout the country; there are also many reports of voters not receiving their ballots in time for the election, and of the board of elections failing to meet ballot requests.

SOTU Analysis: Same Duck or Lame Duck?

CitizenU.org published this State of the Union Scorecard yesterday, before President Bush's 7th and last SOTU address. See if you saw anything the 2 Regular Guys thought you should look for and add your own pundit-type prose on last night's speech.

The President’s State of the Union speech, SOTU, is (Monday). Usually this speech means a ratings bonanza for cable channels. Most Americans, even more so this year, will choose to watch something other than Bush. We suggest that this annual political drama is compelling theatre and should be watched. This scorecard might make your viewing even more interesting.

The Constitution formally demands this annual message: “[The President] shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient,” (Article 2, Section 3). Washington delivered the first, it lasted less than five minutes. Jefferson thought the public address too monarchial and began the custom of submitting the speech in writing only. Wilson returned to giving the speech in front of a joint session of Congress, as it was last night.

Coolidge, in 1923, was the first President to have his SOTU broadcast on radio. Truman, 1947, was the first SOTU to be on TV. LBJ’s, 1965, was the first given during primetime.

The purpose of the speech is to allow the President to report on the status of the country. Generally, the President also provides a laundry list of legislative priorities. The evening begins with the U.S. House Sergeant at Arms calling out to a crowded chamber, “Madam Speaker, the President of the United States.” The President will enter to applause and shake hands along the way toward the front. Expect tonight’s speech to last at least forty-five minutes.

Things to notice: Sitting behind the President will be Vice President Cheney and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. This will be the first Congress where a woman sits behind the President during his SOTU. Check out what she is wearing. Also, count the number of times Cheney chooses to stand in applause while Pelosi sits uncomfortably.

Look to the front of the chamber and you will see a selection of military leaders, the President’s Cabinet and members of the Supreme Court. Are there any conspicuous absences? One Cabinet member is sequestered in a secure location (it was Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne). See if you can determine who that official is tonight.

Check out if Bush has invited any “Lenny Skutniks.” Reagan was the first President to recognize in his SOTU specific notorious individuals. Usually they are seated in the balcony next to the First Lady. Will tonight’s “Lenny Skutniks” be a military person or an everyday citizen? This will be President Bush’s last SOTU. Will the adversarial Congress honor this Lame Duck President with respectful applause? Listen for grumblings and an errant boo. How will the President respond? Will his good old boy charm work in the middle of perceived failures in foreign policy and serious economic uncertainty? Count the number of times the President giggles and chuckles. Look for a joke about Obama and Hillary.

Wait around after the speech because the opposition party gets an opportunity to give a rebuttal. This has been customary since 1966. Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius will give tonight’s Democratic response. Governor Sebelius is considered a rising star in the party. She has shown the unique ability to draw support from not only Democrats but Republicans. Can she channel this bipartisanship tonight in hopes of expanding the vote for Democrats in November?

Above all, these are visual spectacles. Watch carefully. What is seen is often more important than what is said.

What did you notice? What is the State of your Union?

Two pictures not worth 691 words

In Sunday's New York Times Op-Ed piece, entitled, "A President Like My Father," Caroline Kennedy endorses Barak Obama for president. The first question is, "Is the 600+ words in Caroline Kennedy's edorsement worth more than the above images of a Clinton-Kennedy connection?

(Pictured above)

6 June 1963 - the White House Rose Garden - President John F Kennedy, who had only a few months left to live, shakes hands with a delegate from a youth group called ‘the Boys Nation’.

The delegate is 16 year old William Jefferson Clinton, who himself became President 30 years later.

And to complete that particular circle here is President Clinton greeting Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and her children in the self-same Rose Garden shortly before she died in 1994.

_____________

A President Like My Father

By CAROLINE KENNEDY

"OVER the years, I’ve been deeply moved by the people who’ve told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president. This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting a presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama.

My reasons are patriotic, political and personal, and the three are intertwined. All my life, people have told me that my father changed their lives, that they got involved in public service or politics because he asked them to. And the generation he inspired has passed that spirit on to its children. I meet young people who were born long after John F. Kennedy was president, yet who ask me how to live out his ideals.

Sometimes it takes a while to recognize that someone has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things. In those rare moments, when such a person comes along, we need to put aside our plans and reach for what we know is possible.

We have that kind of opportunity with Senator Obama. It isn’t that the other candidates are not experienced or knowledgeable. But this year, that may not be enough. We need a change in the leadership of this country — just as we did in 1960.

Most of us would prefer to base our voting decision on policy differences. However, the candidates’ goals are similar. They have all laid out detailed plans on everything from strengthening our middle class to investing in early childhood education. So qualities of leadership, character and judgment play a larger role than usual.

Senator Obama has demonstrated these qualities throughout his more than two decades of public service, not just in the United States Senate but in Illinois, where he helped turn around struggling communities, taught constitutional law and was an elected state official for eight years. And Senator Obama is showing the same qualities today. He has built a movement that is changing the face of politics in this country, and he has demonstrated a special gift for inspiring young people — known for a willingness to volunteer, but an aversion to politics — to become engaged in the political process.

I have spent the past five years working in the New York City public schools and have three teenage children of my own. There is a generation coming of age that is hopeful, hard-working, innovative and imaginative. But too many of them are also hopeless, defeated and disengaged. As parents, we have a responsibility to help our children to believe in themselves and in their power to shape their future. Senator Obama is inspiring my children, my parents’ grandchildren, with that sense of possibility.

Senator Obama is running a dignified and honest campaign. He has spoken eloquently about the role of faith in his life, and opened a window into his character in two compelling books. And when it comes to judgment, Barack Obama made the right call on the most important issue of our time by opposing the war in Iraq from the beginning.

I want a president who understands that his responsibility is to articulate a vision and encourage others to achieve it; who holds himself, and those around him, to the highest ethical standards; who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American Dream, and those around the world who still believe in the American ideal; and who can lift our spirits, and make us believe again that our country needs every one of us to get involved.

I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans. "

_______________

Do endorsement's matter? It's interesting to try to track who is backing who. The Swing State Project is linked here, it is an effort trying to keep up with the Presidential Match Game, but it has yet to include the Obama, Kennedy connection.

http://www.swingstateproject.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=233

Chaos in Commons

The House of Commons without the chaos of MPs

Ken Weddng's Teaching Comparative Government and Politics blog has two interesting posts all you prospective mock MP's should take note of prior to our classroom chaos on Wednesday:

During Prime Minister's Question Time, why are people always standing up and sitting down?

The short answer is that they want to be recognized by the Speaker so they can ask a question.The long answer is a bit more complex. And I remember it because it was one of those things the BBC commentators felt they needed to explain on the first day that Prime Minister's Question Time was televised, and I was part of the excited audience in November of 1989. And I was taping that first session for my classes.

Here's what I remember.

Questions for the Prime Minister are submitted to the Speaker in advance. The Speaker's staff puts the questions in a random order and numbers them. The first question is always about the PM's schedule. After that, the next question comes from the opposition side of the house. However, if randomly-numbered question 2 was asked by a governing party MP, the Speaker must recognize someone on the opposition side.

So people are standing up to be recognized.That question followed by a question from the government side and then one from the opposition side, etc. Normally, the Speaker just calls out the number of the question. Anytime the randomly-numbered question does not come from the appropriate side of the house, the Speaker must recognize an MP by name.

Since MPs don't know which question is next, anyone who want to ask a question starts standing up as the PM is completing an answer. They're hoping that maybe they'll be recognized to ask the next question.

By the way, you don't have to wait for C-SPAN2 to broadcast sessions of Commons. Parliament has TV online and a 28 day archive of past broadcasts.

What is a three line whip?

As usual, there's a short answer and a long one.

The short answer is that a "three-line whip" is an order from a British Parliamentary party leader to MPs that they must show up and vote properly on a certain measure. No exceptions. (Former Chief Labour Whip and now Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, pictured at right)

The name comes from the fact that the name of the measure is underlined three times on the document given or sent to the MPs. (The messages are probably faxed and e-mailed these days.)

The

British Parliament web site summarizes the long answer this way:

"Whips are MPs or Lords appointed by each party in Parliament to help organise their party's contribution to parliamentary business. One of their responsibilities is making sure the maximum number of their party members vote, and vote the way their party wants...

"Every week, whips send out a circular (called 'The Whip') to their MPs or Lords detailing upcoming parliamentary business. Special attention is paid to divisions (where members vote on debates), which are ranked in order of importance by the number of times they are underlined. Important divisions are underlined three times - a 'three-line whip' - and normally apply to major events like the second readings of significant Bills.

"Three-line whips:

"Defying a three-line whip is very serious, and has occasionally resulted in the whip being withdrawn from an MP or Lord. This means that the Member is effectively expelled from their party (but keeps their seat) and must sit as an independent until the whip is restored...

"If an MP has had the "whip withdrawn," it's likely that the local constituency party committee will withdraw its endorsement at the next election, and independents rarely get elected. A dissenting MP will also be very unlikely to get one of the many public jobs offered by the government or to ever have a place in the cabinet.

The most recent resistance to a three-line whip was in 2003, when 121 Labour MPs voted against Blair's proposed cooperation with the invasion of Iraq.

I can also add that a two-line whip demands attendance and a proper vote from an MP, but excuses for absences can be granted by party leaders (called whips) and penalties are unlikely for unexcused absences or votes against the party policy. A one-line whip allows a member to claim conscience or public opinion in a local constituency as legitimate reasons for voting against the party.

More Comparative "Term Time"

1) The use of the word 'whip' within Parliament has its roots in the 18th century hunting terminology 'whipper-in'. It refers to a huntsman's assistant who drives straying hounds back to the main pack using a whip." -From the Parliament web site cited above

2) The U.S. Senate web site offers this definition of Congressional whips: "whips - Assistants to the floor leaders who are also elected by their party conferences. The Majority and Minority Whips (and their assistants) are responsible for mobilizing votes within their parties on major issues. In the absence of a party floor leader, the whip often serves as acting floor leader."

Bill still using Bully Pulpit, or just being a Bully?

Bill Clinton campaigned for John Kerry in 2004, but now Kerry took aim at the 42nd President Friday, saying the former president "not have a license to abuse the truth."

John Kerry, the Massachusetts senator and 2004 Democratic Presidential candidate, who endorsed Barack Obama's White House bid earlier this month, said Clinton's criticisms of the Illinois senator have been "over the top," and suggested the former president is getting "frantic."

Targeting Clinton's recent spate of attacks on Obama, Kerry said, "I think you had an abuse of the truth, is what happened. …I mean, being an ex-president does not give you license to abuse the truth, and I think that over the last days it's been over the top.

"I think it's very unfortunate, but I think the voters can see through that," Kerry added. "When somebody's coming on strong and they are growing, people get a little frantic, and I think people have seen this sort of franticness in the air, if you will."

Newsweek reports on what Obama says seems like a 2-against-1 primary fight. Currently, while Hillary Clinton is not campaigning in South Carolina, the former president is. Meanwhile, while other prominant Democratic leaders are telling Bill Clinton to cool it, many would still call the last Democratic president the Chief of Party.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/96385

Bill Clinton's hardball politics seemed to have worked, as since he's been on the campaign trail, Hillary has not lost a contest. Still, it not very statesman-like is it?

And does the Clinton-Obama war of words risk tearing the Democratic Pary apart?

Gore’s Gay Marriage Gambit

Irish musician Bono, left, sits with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore while addressing a conference at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and (my guy) Irish rock singer Bono warned the World Economic Forum in Davos on Thursday that efforts to tackle climate change and global poverty were lagging, and not improving conditions as much as is needed.

At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, G-8 Nations were urged to speed up global warming, hunger efforts.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/business/main3747503.shtml

But much coming out of the talking heads of the MSM on this side of the pond came over what Citizen Gore said about Gay Marriage this week.

Gore, who as vice president supported the Defense of Marriage Act, has put up a video on his Current TV Web site in which he stands up for gay marriage:

“Gay men and women ought to have the same rights as heterosexual men and women — to make contracts, to have hospital visiting rights, to join together in marriage, and I don’t understand why it is considered by some people to be a threat to heterosexual marriage…”

Gore’s statement, notes Ben Smith at Politico, “pushes the Democratic establishment that much closer to a position he now shares with Eliot Spitzer and some other leading Dems, and is prompting a bit of grumbling in gay political circles that this batch of candidates aren’t quite there.” He continues:

Gore’s words come after the leading presidential candidates have tiptoed up to, but not crossed, the line of support for same-sex marriage. All three support equal substantive rights for gay and lesbians couples, and they’ve sought to woo gay voters in other ways: Elizabeth Edwards has voiced her support for same-sex marriage, for instance, and Barack Obama recently scolded the black church for homophobia, in a speech to an African-American congregation.

Will Gore’s comments up the ante for the candidates if they want to be seen as sincere? And taking both issues into account, is there any doubt that Al Gore, private citizen, has done more to move the global political debate than Al Gore, elected official, ever did.

Mind the Generation Gap

The third rail of politics met the third rail of the CTA last week in Springfield.

Advocating the reform of Social Security is often called the "third rail of politics" because once any politician touches it…he dies.

While the decisions about fixing Social Security are left exclusively to Federal government officials, Governor Blagojevich seems to be trying to force local officials into the same dilemma.

Just when it looked like state officials might have found a financial resolution to Chicagoland's mass transit woes, Blagojevich made a surprise demand. The Governor indicated that he would only approve a sales tax increase on condition that senior citizens have access to public transportation for free.

In effect, the Governor has offered senior citizens a $20 million gift that puts anyone opposed to such a deal in a precarious political situation. Blagojevich knows that offering a nice perk to Seniors gives him political leverage. Opponents to the potential perk are likely to feel politically vulnerable as they approach a potential third rail.

Whether it be Social Security, Medicare, subsidized prescription drugs or free CTA rides (maybe), senior citizens have tremendous affinity for helpful government programs. Combine their concern about losing these types of programs with their renowned track record for voting in large numbers, and you can see why Seniors are a political force that can never be underestimated.

Blagojevich played the oldest card in the political deck, the General Assembly folded. But the end result may finally be a jackpot for those who count on the CTA.

The governing of a CTA funding plan was hard. It took overtime sessions and doomsday threats. The politics the governor played were easy.

The 2 Regular Guys at CBS2School weigh-in the Governor's CTA gamble. The question for you, is it good government for the seniors to get free rides, or just playing politics?

VIDEO: CBS 2 School: Seniors On The CTA

Drudgery Now Tenured

It has been ten years since a President introduced us to the name Monica. It was ten years ago today that a relatively unknown citizen journalist posted the story that nobody wanted to touch. Monica we try to forget, Matt Drudge and his minions are everywhere.

Ten years ago Matt Drudge, on his website, scooped the mainstream media. According to the legend, Newsweek had the story of President Clinton’s peccadilloes but chose not to run with it. Drudge had no qualms.

Where were you when you first heard the story?

For many of us, we could not believe the story at first. Who was this Matt Drudge? Was he credible? Had he been vetted?

Now we know. The truth was told. The Drudge Report is still visited by millions. Millions more blog, post videos and serve as citizen watchdogs looking for the next big news story.

Ten years ago Matt Drudge, speaking before the National Press Club, said that “the Internet would revolutionize the news business.” He was telling the truth then too.

Most dictionaries define drudgery as work that is “tedious, distasteful and dull.” Matt Drudge is anything but. Citizen journalism sites, modeled after Drudge, litter the information super highway. In fact, they now serve as tipping points for mainstream media coverage.

Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Monica Lewinsky and Ken Starr are all names we would like to forget.Ten years later, Matt Drudge is unforgettable. His kind are unimpeachable.

(from: CitizenU.org)

Where are they now? See:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23063416-28737,00.html

_____________________

Along with putting blogging on the map, the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal left us with one of the most imfamous lies in presidential history:

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." -- Bill Clinton, 1998

Other contenders for the top presidential lies:

"I'm not a crook. I've earned everything I've got." -- Richard Nixon, 1973

"We found the weapons of mass destruction." -- George W. Bush to Polish TV, 2003

"Since I was a little boy, I've heard about the Iowa caucuses." -- Bill Clinton, who was in graduate school when the Iowa Caucuses started in 1972

"Read my lips: no new taxes" -- George H.W. Bush, 1988. He raised income taxand levies in 1991.

"No American boy is going to fight a war on foreign soil." -- FDR, during 1940 campaign.

"the North Vietnamese regime had conducted further deliberate attacks against U.S. naval vessels operating in international waters." -- LBJ, in addressing Congress for the need to pass the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

"The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians." -- Harry S. Truman, August 9, 1945.

"Unemployment in the sense of distress is widely disappearing. . . . We in America today are nearer to the final triumph over poverty than ever before in the history of any land. The poor-house is vanishing from among us." -- Herbert Hoover, 1928

So what do you think? What is the best (or worst) presidential lie of all time. Notice no honest Abe, on the list.

A long winding road

Ceremonial duties fall to the monarch in the UK

As we're about to start a comparative course and look outward at governmental and electoral systems, here's a reading from the other side of the Atlantic that offers some comparative perspectives about the electoral year just begun in the US.

A very long and winding road

"Why does the United States, champion of democracy, have a drawn-out presidential electoral system that is a far cry from the 'one vote for all' principle?..."

And I didn't say that the American people will elect their president, because collectively they do no such thing... a presidential contender can actually lose the popular vote across the whole nation, but can still win the Electoral College, as George Bush himself did in 2000...

"The US may have good reason to pride itself on being the world's oldest continually functioning democracy...

But it's certainly not a democracy in the sense that most of us would understand that term...

"Kennedy [in 1961] neglected to mention something that may have been self-evident on his side of the Atlantic, but which wasn't at all obvious here: that the inauguration of a new president is more akin to the British coronation of a new head of state than to a general election which may result in a new prime minister...

"So, to put it in Bagehot's terms, while our monarch is expected to be dignified, and our prime minister is supposed to be efficient, American presidents are required to be both dignified and efficient at the same time..."

While David Cannadine writes that, "From this side of the Atlantic, these roundabout and arcane processes of choosing a leader seem mildly reminiscent of electing the Holy Roman emperor in medieval and early modern Europe, and of the way in which popes are still decided on by the College of Cardinals to this day." Included in his critique is the Supreme Court final say on the 2000 presidenial election.

Great Britain doesn't even have a written constitution or a Supreme Court. But the author seems to claim better British efficiency. Efficency in government, as good a frame of reference as any from which to start our comparative analyis.

Race & Gender: Getting to the heart of the divide

PIONEERS Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Frederick Douglass worked together on abolition, but then had a bitter split over who should be first to get the right to vote — women or blacks.

With the race being on, it was probably inenvitable that the race and gender cards would be played in the Democratic presidential campaign.

The Economist reports:

“DR KING’S dream began to be realised when President Johnson passed the civil-rights act…it took a president to get it done”. Hillary Clinton’s remark to a journalist last week, the day before the New Hampshire primary, has sparked a furious debate in the Democratic Party. Over the weekend a host of senior black politicians and activists weighed in, with many criticising Mrs Clinton for what they see as an effort to diminish Martin Luther King’s role in the civil-rights era. Nonsense, retorted the Clinton campaign: the record of Bill and Hillary Clinton on matters of race stands up for itself. The campaign blamed Barack Obama’s team for misrepresenting her remarks in an effort to pry black voters away from the Clinton camp ahead of the Democrats’ important South Carolina primary next week."

http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10521712

Of 43 U.S. Presidents, none have been black men or white women. Or black women, for that matter. Among the multiple cleavages in our society, race and gender are two. How the two movements have been linked in harmony and tension is reviewed here in the NY Times:

"One bitter case from the 19th century involved a split between the abolitionist Frederick Douglass and the women’s rights’ pioneer Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Stanton was herself a fervent abolitionist, and a close ally of Douglass, who later confined herself to the cause of women’s equality. These ideals would eventually clash, resulting in increasingly divisive rhetoric that reached a harsh climax after Stanton condemned the 15th amendment — which gave black men the right to vote but left out women of all races — as something that would establish “an aristocracy of sex on this continent.” She also alluded to the “lower orders” like Irish, blacks, Germans, Chinese. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/weekinreview/13leibovich.html?_r=1&ref=weekinreview&oref=slogin

So is race vs. gender a cross-cutting or reinforcing cleavage?

To review, multiple cleavages in one society can be either "cross-cutting" or "reinforcing," which are assessments of the degree to which the multiple cleavages are congruent. That's best explained with an example: if you've got a society where some people are green and some people are blue, that's one cleavage. And then if some people are rich and some people are poor, that's another cleavage. If most of the green people are rich and most of the blue people are poor, you've got a reinforcing cleavage. If roughly equal numbers of each ethnic group are in each economic category, you've got a cross-cutting cleavage.

In general, cross-cutting cleavages contribute to social stability, (but lessen the effectiveness of the movement) while reinforcing cleavages are bad news for the status quo.

Put another way, as explained by WV grad Heidi Hockerberger, a reinforcing cleavage is like a push-up bra, it brings focus to the movement. While a cross-cutter is like a sports bra, bringing more stability to heart of society.

A Keynan (not Obama) in Race for his life

Runners train in Kenya on Friday after violence from the political unrest had some sprinting for their lives.

Barack Obama is an African (Kenyan) American who maybe in a race for his Presidential life. One of the weaknesses political opponents will try to exploit is the junior senator from Illinois' foreign policy experience. But Obama does have family experience with one of the greatest challenges for the next U.S. president.

As you may recall, Obama’s father was Kenyan. Obama has traveled back to Kenya many times. Most recently in 2006, Obama was welcomed by huge crowds. He held closed door meetings with Kenya’s highest political leaders.

Obama’s warnings in 2006 were prophetic.Obama warned Kenyans of the danger of government corruption. He spoke of the need to trust one’s government. Obama found the renewed tribalism alarming. Ethnic division would hold back the progress Kenya had achieved, Obama said. Further, Kenyan health care must be a government priority.

Sounds a little like speeches on the horse race stump here, in the 2008 primary sprint.

Back in Kenya Obama’s warnings went unheeded. The recent presidential election seemed to have been rigged. Incumbent president, Mwai Kibaki, claimed victory despite his party winning only 35 of the 210 open seats in the government. Opposition candidate, Raila Odinga, feels certain he won. Mob killings, burned villages and social unrest have permeated this important African country.

Our policy makers all too often seem to overlook the importance of Africa burning on the global scene. This is a tragic mistake. Bono last year said what is done/or not by EU nations about Africa will be its defining decision.

As we transition to the comparative lense, a real race for life was illustrated in the Chicago Tribune on Sunday:

"KUINET, Kenya - When world marathon champion Luke Kibet goes running, he likes to focus on finishing first. But on one run during Kenya's postelection upheaval, the 25-year-old star had something else on his mind: staying alive.

Kibet was knocked to the ground by a large rock that struck his head on New Year's Eve as violence swept the country after the disputed Dec. 27 presidential vote. Regaining his senses with blood oozing from his skull, he looked up to see a mob of machete-wielding men approaching.

He got up and started running -- this time for his life."

The rest of the article is linked here:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-runners_bdjan13,1,4444207.story

The question is, which American presidential horse race candidate has the experience has to deal with this life & death race in Africa. Or will American an the EU sit on the sidelines, disinterested?

Shame Old Promises or Real Change?

Primary voters have, again, been persuaded to cast votes in favor of change. Change is a bipartisan word. Candidates on both sides of the political spectrum are desperately claiming the mantle of change.

Campaigning against the establishment is not new. In fact, it is the oldest campaign trick. How many reform promises have we heard? How many times has our government been reinvented? How many candidates over the years have pledged their trustworthiness?

Too many to count.

Do you really want change? If so, we should be demanding specifics. Here are a few suggestions. They are taken from a new book by Larry Sabato, professor of political science at the University of Virginia. Sabato’s new book, A MORE PERFECT CONSTITUTION, suggests 23 structural changes to our current government. Here is a sampling:

1. Establish term limits in the House and Senate.
2. Add a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.
3. Establish a new 6-year, 1-time Presidential term.
4. Limit some Presidential war-making powers.
5. Eliminate lifetime tenure for federal judges.
6. Adopt a regional, staggered lottery system for Presidential party nominations.
7. Mandating partial public financing for House and Senate campaigns.

For a complete list of Professor Sabato's suggestions see: http://www.amoreperfectconstitution.com/index.htm

Though we cannot endorse any, these would be specific changes. Thus far, Obama and other candidates have gotten away with shallow words, but no details.

When, if ever, will these candidates who promise change back up those words with real political innovations?

Nothing has changed if they don’t.

And if that is the case, the Emperor’s new clothes are nothing to cheer about. Shame on all of us.

(From CitizenU.org)

Super Duper Race is On

THE Iowa caucus marked the beginning of the real campaign for America's presidential hopefuls, and after by the closely watched New Hampshire primary. Early gains or losses can have marked effects thoughout presidential campaign history. In 1992, after coming second in New Hampshire, Bill Clinton called himself the “comeback kid” and went on to win the nomination for the Democrats. This time around, even though Hillary Clinton was the front-runner for most of the year-long wait till the gate, after a loss to Barack Obama in Iowa, her victory in New Hampshire that stunned the pollsters singled "Race On."

On February 5th (Super Duper Tuesday) over 20 states hold either primaries or caucuses. Included are the important states of California and New York, making the day feel closer than ever to a national primary. Earlier we have posted about the viability of a national primary day, or regional primaries, but with Illinois among the front-loading state primaries on 'Super Duper' Tuesday, we may actually have campaigning in the Land of Lincoln.

The question is, would you look forward to campaign ads and stump speeches here? Or would it be like the old adage, "Be careful what you wish for."

Remember in a practical sense, the canidates are collecting delegates to get nominated at the national convention. CNN's delegate scorecard is linked here with the early leaders in race, Hillary on the Democratic side (183; 2,025 needed to win) and Mitt Romney in the GOP run (30; 1,191 needed)

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#val=D

The Revolution Will Not be Televised

"The Revolution Will Not Be Televised," the 1970 song lyrics and poem penned by Gil Scott-Heron may become another fight song of the Ron Paul campaign. As has been reported by The Huffington Post, Fox News is not allowing Rep. Paul to participate in the January 6th forum here in New Hampshire.

According to Brent Budowsky of the Huffington Post, this is another example of coorporate interest centered MSM (main stream media) controlling the debate, and maybe to the degredation of our democracy:

"First major media fails to give candidates even minimally fair coverage, going back a year.

Then major media makes some of the most experienced and qualified candidates virtually beg for a few seconds in the debates.

Now they move to exclude candidates entirely.

Whoever controls the aiwaves controls the ballgame. Though the airwaves are a public trust, they have been abused by those holding the airwaves in trust for the public, violating the most cardinal values of a free press, First Amendment, and truly democratic debate.

Though Paul has raised over $20 million in the last quarter of 2007, and beat Rudy Giuliani in Iowa Thursday and leads Fred Thompson in heavily independent New Hampshire, Giuliani and Thompson have been put in by Fox. Paul is out. Censored?

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/72729/

That $20 million question could be, will Paul run as a third-party candidate? The former Libertarian has an army of revolutionairees on his side, chanting, "Ron Paul REVOLUTION -- give us back our constitution!" in this linked video.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/election08/72647

The question is, is or can the MSM be an institutional obstacle to outside the mainsteam two-party candidates. And do you wish you had access to hear more from the likes of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich?

Iowa Caucus commentary here

I'll be watching the developments from Iowa tonite, and hope you will join me in conversation in the blogosphere. Sarah Sampson says she'll check in on the ground from Des Monines. C-Span will have gavel-to-gavel coverage inside one of the Democratic caucus sights at 7 pm, with a call-in preview at 6 pm. C-Span II will cover the Republican caucus.

http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/schedule.csp

By the way, the Republican contest is a much more standard show up and vote, whereas the Democrats with second-round horse trading is more interesting to watch and comment on. Also, listen to the talking heads and critique what they say. Last night, three callers on C-Span projected Ron Paul to finish a solid third on the Republican side. Hope to hear from you here in the comments section tonite,

They're at the Gate.....

One of the jobs Waubonsie Valley grad Sarah Sampson may have tomorrow in Iowa is to arrage for baby-sitting for potential caucus goers. On the ground on Wednesday working for Barack Obama in Des Moines, Sarah spent her time arranging for rides for those she hopes will show up to caucus for her candidate.

Sarah Sampson called me yesterday from Des Moines, Iowa where she met the candidate she's volunteering for. Sarah, past president of Youth & Government and alumnus of AP Government at WVHS, spoke with more exitement than many would think possible in Iowa.

She said she got the chance to meet Barack Obama Wednesday, while spending the day trying to arrange rides for caucus-goers Thursday night. "He has the most diverse group of supporters," Sarah related. "That's what I think is so cool. That's why he's the kind of candidate I want to help become president if I can."

With now less than 24 hours left till the first nominating contest in the country, Iowa is where it's happening for many politically active college students. The Politico wrote about Winter Break Iowa style:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7631.html

"After we go out and meet people and do what they want us to do, we go back and play cards and talk, kind of like at Youth & Government,'' Sarah said. "I didn't think it would be like that, but it's really cool."

The hands-on retail politics in Iowa, a state with 2.9 million residents, has always attracted what many critics call a disproportionate importance in the presidential nominating process. The USA Today reports that the Iowa caucuses have never attracted more than 250,000 participants from both parties. A good article with a wonderful graphic visualizing the Iowa Democratic caucuses from the USA Today is linked here:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-01-iowa-caucus_N.htm

And an entertaining "Causing is Easy," ad is linked here from the Hillary Clinton campaign.

www.hillaryclinton.com/video/69.aspx

As for some news on the ground today in Iowa, Dennis Kucinich called for his supporters to throw their support to Obama as their 'second-choice' if he does not read the 15% viability standard at caucuses.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080102/NEWS09/801020352/1001/NEWS

Liberal activist Michael Moore, while not endorsing, in a letter posted on his website, seemed to support John Edwards over Obama and Clinton.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=220

And Obama increased his lead in the last Des Moines Register poll, the poll also found that most independents planned to caucus with the Democrats.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080101/NEWS09/301010015/1001/NEWS

Tomorrow should be an exciting night -- the horses are at the gate. Watch caucus coverage on C-Span (or C-Span.com) -- for non-infortainment biased coverage -- and blog your commentary here. I'll be here doing the same. For pre-prognostication, post your picks that will click. Will Obama and Huckabee come through as the polls project, or will there be another Iowa surprise like Howard Dean's screaming fall from the ranks of the contenders?