US Election 2008 Blog

By Dante Chinni, Christian Science Monitor

Washington - A debate, as defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is “a contention by words or arguments … as a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides.”

If you have watched any of the “debates” among the 2008 Democratic and Republican presidential hopefuls, you might be wondering if US news media read the dictionary much. The events featuring eight potential Democratic and 10 possible Republican nominees, each lined up on their respective stages, look and feel less like debates than talent shows. Each candidate wants to stand out and be noticed, without saying or doing something that might embarrass himself or herself.

As painful as they can be to watch, these early debates are nothing new. The Democrats’ first primary debate for the 2004 presidential race was held on May 3, 2003 – there were nine candidates in that one. You probably don’t remember it because it wasn’t televised until hours after it ended and not televised at all in some parts of country.

Read the rest of this entry »

By George F. Will, Washington Post

Early in George W. Bush’s presidency, liberal critics said: The economy is not growing. Which was true. He inherited the debris of the 1990s’ irrational exuberances. A brief (eight months) and mild (the mildest since World War II) recession began in March 2001, before any of his policies were implemented. It ended in November 2001.

In 2002, when his tax cuts kicked in and the economy began 65 months — so far — of uninterrupted growth, critics said: But it is a “jobless recovery.” When the unemployment rate steadily declined — today it is 4.5 percent; time was, 6 percent was considered full employment — critics said: Well, all right, the economy is growing and creating jobs and wealth, but the wealth is not being distributed in accordance with the laws of God or Nature or liberalism or something.

Last Sunday, eight Democratic presidential candidates debated for two hours, saying about the economy . . . next to nothing. You must slog to Page 43 in the 51-page transcript before Barack Obama laments that “the burdens and benefits of this new global economy are not being spread evenly across the board” and promises to “institute some fairness in the system.”

Well. When in the long human story have economic burdens and benefits been “spread evenly”? Does Obama think they should be, even though talents never are? What relationship of “fairness” does he envision between the value received by individuals and the value added by them? Does he disagree — if so, on what evidence? — with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke that “the influence of globalization on inequality has been moderate and almost surely less important than the effects of skill-biased technological change”?

Read the rest of this entry »

By Joan Vennochi, Boston Globe

THE NEXT time the Democrats debate, they should pull out a chair for Bill Clinton.

Wolf Blitzer asked all the candidates what they would do with Bill Clinton if they were elected president. His question was clearly posed to get Hillary Clinton to talk about her husband’s role in any future Clinton administration.

Mike Gravel, the former senator from Alaska, said he would use Clinton as a goodwill ambassador, adding, to laughter, “He can take his wife with him; she’ll still be in the Senate.”

Hillary Clinton said, “Bill Clinton, my dear husband, would be sent around the world as a roving ambassador.” There isn’t a problem we face, she added, “where we don’t need friends and allies, and he would be a tremendous help.”

At another moment, Hillary Clinton was asked whether the Clinton administration’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding gays and lesbians in the military was a mistake. She called it “a transition policy.” Then, when the candidates were asked what they would do if they had information about Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts, Clinton noted, “My husband tried to take out bin Laden.”

Her opponents also used Bill Clinton as a reference point. Senator Joe Biden of Delaware noted that he “came to your husband” to make the case for US involvement in the Balkans. When asked to give his “definition of rich,” Senator Barack Obama of Illinois referenced tax policy “back to when Clinton was in office.”

For Hillary Clinton, this could be a plus with voters who yearn for the Clinton years. But it also focuses attention on a complicated political and marital relationship — and is all about the past.

The Clintons, of all politicians, know that presidential elections are about the future. Remember the Clinton-Gore campaign song of 1992? The refrain went, “Don’t stop thinking about tomorrow.” It wasn’t “Yesterday.”