Politirazzi

By Matt

Simply put, this primary season has gone on for too long. I personally have lost interest in the campaign as it has dragged on across these many months. The continued battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, instead of stoking my interest in the race, has had me asking myself when it will all end. In conversations with family and friends, this feeling seems to be somewhat common. Thus, the most important change that the parties can make to the primary system would be to shorten it.

One of the reasons the primary (and general campaign) season has been so long this year is because Iowa and New Hampshire moved their caucus/primary dates to make sure that they retained their first-in-the-nation status.

As long as these two states fight to retain that status, the primary season will remain abnormally elongated. But who cares about Iowa and New Hampshire? Are the traditions associated with their respective primary selection methods so important that the nation should suffer the effects of the malaise and fatigue that can (and has) come from this seemingly endless race?

(continued)

By Matt

The most interesting “ism” at play in this year’s presidential race is racism. It is an issue that has at times shadowed and at times come to the fore of Barack Obama’s campaign. While he might have hoped to settle the issue of his race with his speech on the matter several weeks ago, it is unfortunately likely that it will surface in some serious (as in attention-grabbing) way again.

Rather than focus on the obvious racism question — something to the effect of “Will racism keep Obama from winning?” or “Can whites overcome their animus to vote for a serious black candidate?” — I’d like instead to ask whether Obama’s success in several former Confederate states says something about racism in this nation more broadly. A common notion (or stereotype) is that feelings of animus toward members of minority races are more prevalent, naturally, in the South. But do Barack Obama’s primary victories in places like, among others, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Mississippi, speak to a heretofore unrecognized evolution of our fellow Americans below the Mason-Dixon line?

(continued)

By Matt

If Hillary Clinton were to win the Democratic nomination — in spite of the popular vote in favor of Barack Obama — the question I will be most concerned with is not what effect that will have on Democratic voters, but whether those dissatisfied with the result of the 2000 presidential election will finally stop harping on the deficiencies of the electoral college and the supposed injustice of a system in which a person who doesn’t get the highest absolute number of votes can still manage to get elected.

One cannot help but trip over the irony of the Democratic nominee potentially being decided not by the popular vote — oh no! — but by the popular vote and the votes of the party’s superdelegates. It would be ironic indeed if the precedent relied upon in such a nomination fight was the scourge of Bush v. Gore.

(continued)

(AP)

By Matt

In response to this week’s talker, I was tempted to rant about the ridiculous amount of attention paid to Jeremiah Wright (close to 20,000 hits on Google News). Although I have to admit that I’ve enjoyed seeing the otherwise superbly composed Barack Obama squirm as of late, I and I hope most other Americans find it pretty hard to believe that such a smart guy would let his politics be influenced by such a hateful, ignorant one. I don’t support Barack Obama, but I feel comfortable giving him the benefit of the doubt in this case. Maybe Obama could have nipped this story in the bud with a stronger denunciation the first time around, but how could he have anticipated last week’s turn of events?

(continued)

By Matt

This election season, immigration is the most important issue to me because though important in and of itself, it also touches on other significant issues like homeland security, the economy, and respect for the law. The candidates’ respective positions on immigration indirectly reflect broader governing principles that they will bring to bear in other policy areas.

Aside from devising new legal solutions to the problem of illegal immigration, one of the country’s most pressing policy concerns is how to enforce existing laws against those who enter the country illegally and those who employ them. The problem of illegal aliens within the United States appears to be an intractable one. Yet while there may be manifest difficulties in dealing with the illegal immigrant population currently here, each of the candidates has offered what they consider to be practical, realistic solutions to this part of the immigration problem. Similarly, each has spoken out about the necessity of securing the border not only to stem the flow of illegal entrants, but also to prevent terrorists from entering the country. The presence of vast numbers of undocumented aliens also raises questions about education, health care and the economy. For instance, if economic conditions continue to worsen, and more Americans become unemployed, will the average American still spurn the chance to work in the manual labor and service positions often held by illegal immigrants? Immigration thus touches on a variety of domestic and foreign policy concerns. As the election plays out, particularly if the economy continues to worsen, it will be interesting to see how much attention each candidate pays to the issue and how they frame their solutions to it.

Rather than discuss which candidate’s views on the issue I prefer, I thought I’d provide links to each candidate’s Web site so that the readers can inform themselves on the issue. So, here’s the McCain, Clinton and Obama take on the issue. I’ll follow up soon with my thoughts on whose policy is the most promising and responsive.

Matt, like most of the other Politirazzi and Obama himself, predicts a Clinton win but only a slim margin. (AP)

By Matt

It looks like it’s coming right down to the wire, but I think Hillary Clinton will pull off a victory in Pennsylvania. The margin of victory will be slim, probably within 5 percent if I had to guess. If Clinton does in fact win, I think the story will be about her resiliency and about Barack Obama’s inability to put the final nail in Clinton’s coffin.

Despite the long odds she faces of catching Obama in popular votes, I find it quite interesting that Clinton has maintained such strong polling numbers in Pennsylvania. Particularly if her own polling numbers are to be believed, Pennsylvania voters do not care that Clinton faces a nearly insurmountable delegate deficit. Her comeback victory in what is an important presidential swing state will carry a broader message about the continued vitality and viability of her campaign, even if the delegate numbers remain in her opponent’s favor.

I must confess that as fan of neither of the Democratic nominees, I will enjoy the aftermath of a Clinton victory in Pennsylvania — perhaps renewed calls for meaningful Michigan and Florida primaries, added pressure on superdelegates to commit to one candidate, and almost certainly more mud slinging between the two nominees. As political theater, the spectacle of a primary fight that extends to (and maybe through) the convention will be riveting. If I were a Democrat, I would this thing wrapped up come Wednesday morning. Unfortunately, with a Clinton victory in Pennsylvania, that might not happen for a while.

By Matt

The longer than ever primary season will hurt the Democrats for two related reasons. First, the prolonged campaign for the nomination has led to extended, counterproductive sniping between the candidates. Second, because the entire party has not been able to unite a behind a single candidate, Democrats (as compared to Republicans) may need a longer time unifying the party behind the eventual nominee.

Even at this late stage, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are still vigorously campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination. As other candidates have fallen out of the race, each has been able to focus their attention on the other. As this marathon primary season has run on, the message of each of the candidates has shifted from a positive message of what they bring to the table to what the other cannot. Whichever candidate eventually wins the nomination will be battle tested. However, the real question is whether this battle is worth sacrificing the larger war for the election. I tend to think that party in-fighting tends to hurt the party and can alienate supporters of the (eventual) losing candidate. There are, of course, those who say that such primary fights enliven the electorate and spur voter turnout. I think that that position might be a bit too optimistic in this campaign for the Democratic primary, where the reputation sniping has shifted attention from the real substantive issues that Democrats care about.

This prolonged campaign season has given John McCain a distinct advantage: his relatively speedy capture of the nomination has allowed him to work on securing his base, particularly those loyal Republic voters who question his conservative bonafides.

(continued)

By Matt

The reality of the endorsements is that they are important. The simple fact of the matter is that normal people are often too busy with work, family and other personal responsibilities to pay detailed attention to elections or to research the positions the candidates respectively take on various issues. Whether voters should somehow reorder their priorities to create time for political education and involvement is a separate matter. The demands of every day life prohibit some voters from doing that with any ease.

Thus, in a world where politics in general and campaign debates over certain particular issues occupy the back burner for many voters, endorsements can and do serve as a useful proxy for the candidate and issue research they might otherwise undertake in an ideal world.

For instance, take Bill Richardson’s recent endorsement of Barack Obama . While Richardson’s endorsement led to allegations of betraying the Clintons and of being a turncoat, it also carried a substantive message for those who trust Richardson — stripped of the message it sent about Richardson’s rejection of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, the endorsement told voters that Barack Obama’s views were more in tune with Bill Richardson’s than were Hillary Clinton’s. For a busy parent or worker, then, Bill Richardson, of whose positions they are already somewhat informed, serves as a conduit for getting at what Barack Obama stands for.

(continued)

By Matt

It was reported over the weekend that Bob Barr, the former congressman from Georgia, has formed an exploratory committee and may be entering the presidential campaign as the Libertarian Party’s candidate. While I understand the frustrations that led Barr to leave the Republican Party and that are apparently motivating him to seek the Libertarian Party’s nomination, I wonder whether his entrée into the race could do more harm than good to the values Libertarians like him espouse.

There is no chance Barr can win the general election. He may intend his candidacy to “Send a Message” or to raise issues he and other Libertarians consider important , but neither Barr nor anyone else can seriously believe that his campaign can or will do much else.

(continued)

By Matt

Hillary Clinton is the candidate I’d least like to see taking the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2009. I fear that a Clinton victory could again paralyze Washington — if not because of scandal, then because of the potential for renewed enmity and the re-opening of bitter wounds left by her husband’s terms in office. For better or worse, rightly or wrongly, Bill and Hillary Clinton are polarizing figures. I worry that the personal and political history with which Senator Clinton is saddled may burden her ability to compromise and to work cooperatively with other leaders, particularly congressional Republicans. While Senator Clinton has been a model colleague during her two Senate terms, as President, she will not have the luxury of being one of 100.

The buck will stop with her, and she will necessarily have to take clearly defined stances on the most controversial issues of the day. Indeed, she will be not only the head of government, responsible for the shaping of national policy in myriad ways, but she will also be the head of her own political party, shaping its agenda and defining the Democratic platform during her time in office.

She will have no choice at times but to be a partisan, and combined with her exalted office, this will make her the primary target of the opposition. This of course is no different than the political barriers faced by any other President; however, the unique amalgam of this expected political turbulence, the scandals of the recent past, her husband’s return to the White House, and lingering feelings of mistrust from her husband’s years in the Oval Office may affect President Hillary Clinton’s ability to govern.

(continued)