R&L 2008 Election Blog

Bill Ayers: An Unrepentant Domestic Terrorist

By Paul Hollander

As some political commentators attack Barack Obama for his ties to radical Bill Ayers (a cofounder of the 1960s Weather Underground, which bombed public buildings), many academics have rushed to Ayers’s defense. These professors share Ayers's political beliefs and seek to dissociate these beliefs from his past actions; the latter are outright denied, ignored, or obfuscated. Some have even gone so far as to sign an online petition demanding protection for Ayers's right to free speech, as though that were the issue in question.

I wrote about Ayers in my book The End of Commitment: Intellectuals, Revolutionaries and Political Morality (2006), which included a chapter about intellectuals who refused to reconsider their radical leftist beliefs. Ayers preeminently belongs to this group. I came to this conclusion after reading his memoirs and other writings. What is most unusual about him is that, unlike so many other sixties radicals, he has refused to express any regret for his past record of political violence, most notoriously in a New York Times interview. In that interview he said, “I don’t regret setting bombs.... I feel we did not do enough.” As reported elsewhere, he summed up his radical-activist career as “guilty as hell, free as a bird—America is a great country.” In his memoirs he redefines the political violence he and his comrades engaged in as “armed propaganda.” He escaped prosecution on serious federal charges due to a technicality.

Ayers was and probably remains an idealist, but his idealism is the kind—all too common among supporters of extremist movements—that allows the idealist to resort to sordid means in pursuit of the glorious ends. In the Inside Higher Ed piece, Ayers is euphemistically and misleadingly described as “a passionate participant” in the civil rights and antiwar movements of the 1960s. Passionate he was, as well as intolerant, authoritarian, fanatical, and enamored with the grandiose and unrealistic political fantasies embraced by the most radical and most embittered groups (such as the Weathermen) of the period. In his defense we are informed that he is “a personable professor known to invite his classes over for dinner at his home” and that he “cooked pasta” for his students. Surely these moving gestures wipe the slate clean—a man of such warmth could not have planted bombs, could he? Many disreputable political figures have shown themselves to be capable of warmth on selected occasions, but this has little to do with their political beliefs and actions. Concentration camp commanders played (or listened to) classical music and took very good care of their pet animals, many mafiosi were good family men, and serial killers have often been described by their neighbors as nice, considerate people. I am not suggesting that Ayers belongs to these categories, only that acting kindly on nonpolitical occasions is compatible with displaying violent hatred in the political arena.

Ayers’s memoirs suggest that not only did he find it easy to justify his own and his friends’ political violence by the lofty goals pursued but that he was positively intoxicated by it; he expressed great pride in having been a good street fighter, in “fighting like madmen” the police and in the “warrior rising up inside me.” It cannot be ruled out that Ayers changed his mind about his past, modified his utopian longings and became more tolerant of those who don’t share his views of the world; it is even possible that he no longer believes that American society is the most detestable that ever existed. I have yet to see any statement of his that would indicate that such a transformation of his political persona has taken place.

Paul Hollander is professor emeritus of sociology at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and author or editor of numerous books, including most recently The Only Superpower: Reflections on Strength, Weakness, and Anti-Americanism (Lexington Books, November 2008).

Beware of Media Concerns: Using Poll Data to Track Partisan Movements

By Jeff Stonecash

The events never seem to stop. In August we had the issue of whether Hillary’s followers would find healing and reconciliation at the Democratic convention. Then there was the Democratic convention and the issue of whether Obama was too grand in his speech. Then we had the Republican convention, the issue of how to include or not include George Bush, and the emergence of Sarah Palin. Then there were two weeks of media focus on her as the media explored her background and possible impact on the election. That was shoved aside by the crisis in financial institutions, and the intrigue of how the parties would respond to a request for a $700 billion bailout proposal. As all these events unfolded the horserace fluctuated and there was steady concern with how these events were moving the horserace.

Campaigns have to cope with these events and sometimes responding consumes a great deal of energy. But campaigns are also focused on moving specific voters to their side, and while the horserace sometimes heartens them and other times unnerves them, the concern of campaigns is identifying and bringing to them the voters they think they can win. The crucial role of polls and tracking is to provide feedback on whether the campaign is connecting with its base and moving them to the candidate.

Partisanship and Bringing Them Home

Partisan voting has increased in recent years as we continue to sort out the electorate. The Republican Party has been seeking to attract conservatives and the Democrats liberals. Each party also has moderates and the Democrats even have some conservatives. The concern of each campaign is to bring their partisan supporters to their column. While various events and all the media coverage of them occur, the crucial matter that campaign pollsters track is whether they are succeeding. The following graph indicates what a campaign looks for and what is happening in this year’s presidential race.

The chart uses data taken from the Gallup Poll’s weekly aggregation of poll results. Each day Gallup asks over 1000 registered voters for their candidate choice. They also ask them if they identify with the Republican or Democratic Party or are Independent, and whether they regard themselves as liberal, moderate or conservative. From this it is possible to classify registrants as conservative-Republicans, liberal/moderate-Republicans, Independents, etc. For each of these groups the simplest concern is how much of an advantage the candidate has within the group. To assess this I arbitrarily chose a focus on McCain and calculated his advantage within each group.

For the August 4-10 compilation, McCain won conservative-Republicans 91-5, or he had an 86 point advantage within that group. The goal of the campaign is to win the support of those most likely to support the candidate. The same is true for Obama.

The question is how, amid all the events of the last two months, whether the campaigns are making progress, or are the events creating erratic movements? The results show that each campaign is succeeding. McCain has steadily increased his advantage among those who identify as Republicans. Obama is also succeeding, though with some fluctuation among conservative-Democrats. McCain’s advantage among Democrats has become steadily more negative, indicating Democrats are steadily moving to Obama.

Events appear to be having less disruptive impact on the movement of partisans to support their candidates than we may presume. The messages of campaigns, even in a crowded media world, appear to be working to bring partisans home. The first task of each campaign, mobilizing its base, is occurring. While the horserace gets a great deal of attention, the campaigns are focusing on using poll data to track whether they are attracting their partisan supporters. There is a crucial and major concern with attracting Independents, but that is a separate and later topic.

Jeffrey Stonecash is professor of political science at Syracuse University and the author of Political Polling: Strategic Information in Campaigns.

Will the Choice of Sarah Palin Pay Off for John McCain?

By Mark D. Brewer

While one might once have thought knocking Britney Spears from the top spot in the headlines impossible, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has accomplished that feat. Although Spears’ three awards at MTV’s Video Music Awards on Sunday night are garnering a good deal of press coverage, the American media spotlight still shines brightest on Palin, as it has now for over a week. Socially conservative Republicans are extremely pleased (to say the least) with the selection of Palin as the GOP’s nominee for Vice President, and their enthusiasm has provided a jolt to the Republicans’ campaign efforts. Indeed, the campaign of Republican presidential nominee John McCain scrapped plans for Palin to begin campaigning on her own this week, choosing instead to keep her as close to McCain as possible because of the overwhelmingly positive reactions she has been generating in their joint appearances. CNN’s most recent “poll of polls” has Democratic nominee Barack Obama’s lead over McCain down to just one percentage point, the smallest figure since both candidates secured presumptive nominee status. Here in early September, Republicans are suddenly feeling pretty good. I wonder if such feelings will be intact on November 5.

Certainly there is a lot to like about Governor Palin, especially from the perspective of a social conservative. She holds a very pro-life view on abortion, opposing the practice even in cases of rape and incest; is a married mother of five, and chose to carry her youngest child—five-month-old son Trig—to term despite knowing he would be born with Down Syndrome; is a long-time and active member of a church belonging to the Assemblies of God, the largest Pentecostal denomination in the United States; and strongly supports teaching of creationism alongside of evolution and abstinence instead of broader sex education in public schools. Palin is, in short, a social conservative’s dream candidate. Add in the numerous elements of Palin’s appeal to the broader electorate—her reputation as a reformer in notoriously corrupt Alaska (especially Republican) politics, her staunch advocacy for increased drilling for oil and natural gas in a period of high anxiety over energy costs, her rural upbringing and regular participation in activities important in rural settings such as fishing and hunting, her son, Track, who is about to deploy to Iraq, and the charisma and speaking ability she demonstrated in her acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, to name but a few—and it is easy to see why John McCain chose her as his running mate and also why the overall Republican outlook has brightened since her selection. Certainly the reaction to the selection of Palin has been more positive than negative on the whole. But I remain unconvinced of the wisdom of the choice.

To me, tapping Palin for the number two spot on the ticket signals that the McCain campaign has decided to pursue a Rovian strategy in the 2008 general election campaign—energize the base and maximize their turnout on Election Day. At first glance it might appear difficult to argue with such a decision. After all, wringing every last vote out of the Republican base worked well for George W. Bush in 2000 and especially 2004, and there is no doubt that much of the GOP base was lukewarm at best regarding McCain prior to his selection Palin as his running mate. But I am not so sure that the Rove playbook can work for the Republicans this time around, for three reasons. First, John McCain is not George W. Bush. The social conservative base of the Republican Party recognized and embraced Bush as one of their own. They will never do so with McCain, and while they may indeed love Sarah Palin, McCain’s name is still at the top of the ticket.

Second, the 2008 electorate is likely to look much different than those of 2004 and 2000. Turnout almost certainly will be higher in this election cycle, due at least in part to the large number of new voters that the Obama campaign has been able to register since the Senator from Illinois formally began his campaign. While there are legitimate questions about how many of these new registrants will actually vote on Election Day, certainly some of them will, making it less likely that the previous base will be enough for the Republicans on November 4.

Third, and perhaps most important, I believe this election will be fought and won in the middle rather than as a battle between the bases. Unlike 2004, I think that the candidate who performs best in this amorphous, ill-defined, middle of the electorate—independents, swing-voters, undecideds, call them whatever you choose—will take the oath of office in January 2009. I wonder about Palin’s appeal among these voters. Specifically, I wonder how these voters will react to Palin’s relative inexperience and her youth. In my opinion, McCain was poised to do quite well among these voters, in particular by pointing to his lengthy record of accomplishment in the Senate and especially by raising concerns of Obama’s youth and inexperience. Such a strategy worked well for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries, and was arguably working well enough to keep McCain close in the polls even as the media focused more intensely on Obama. In my judgment, Palin’s nomination significantly reduces the effectiveness of this tactic for the McCain campaign, seriously neutralizing what was perhaps its biggest weapon.

Election Day is still almost two full months away, a lifetime in a presidential campaign. There is much still to come in this race, and any and all of what I have written about could look silly in a short period of time (if it does not appear so already). Many Republicans believe that in Sarah Palin the party has identified its newest rising star. They may well be right. But I do wonder if John McCain might ultimately regret providing Palin a national launching pad at the expense of his presidential hopes in 2008.

Mark D. Brewer is assistant professor of political science at the University of Maine and co-author, with L. Sandy Maisel, of Parties and Elections in America: The Electoral Process, Fifth Edition (2008)

The 2008 Election: 1952 All Over Again?

By Gary A. Donaldson

As elections approach, pundits want to compare this presidential campaign to that campaign, these candidates to those candidates, this situation to that. The 2008 campaign is, of course, no different.

It seems reasonable to peg this campaign to 1952. Perhaps the most important comparison, the one that is made most often, is that 2008 is the first campaign since 1952 in which no seated president or vice president made a run for the office. Neither candidate—Adlai E. Stevenson (then the Democratic governor of Illinois) nor Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower—had ever been in the Oval Office. Yes (for those trivia experts out there) old Alben Barkley, Harry Truman’s VP, was officially a candidate for about 20 days in July. But when the AFL-CIO said they would not support his candidacy (they said he was too old, at 74) he took his hat out of the ring.

Both elections (1952 and this one, 2008) followed extremely unpopular administrations. Truman had sunk to probably the lowest point of any president in American history. In March 1952 his approval ratings crashed to a dismal 23 percent. Most historians usually find this fascinating because today Truman is revered as a sort of presidential hero: the little guy who stood up to the Russian Bear, “The buck stops here” president who took the heat, “Give’em hell, Harry,” all of that. But while he was in office he was not popular. Most Americans saw him as an interim president—between FDR and what would come later (probably the Republicans). There was corruption in his administration. And, oh yes, there was that unpopular war in Korea.

It should not be surprising that George W. Bush, on his way out of Washington, has taken Truman’s legacy to heart. Bush’s approval ratings are not quite as low as Truman’s. A fair assessment for our current president runs at about 28 percent. More than once, Bush (and several around him) have cited Truman’s dazzling legacy as a reason for the president’s lack of concern for his own poor approval ratings. Ah, presidential legacy. What will historians say about me?

Both presidents found themselves enveloped in an unpopular Asian war. In the summer of 1950, communist North Korea invaded non-communist South Korea. With no input from any advisors on any level, Truman decided to intervene. In fact, he later said that he made the decision, alone, in the plane flight back to Washington from his home in Missouri just hours after being notified of the attack. It seemed to be the right thing to do, at least at first. It was officially a United Nations operation, albeit under U.S. command. And Truman tried to minimize the impact of the event by avoiding the nasty word “war” and calling it a “police action.” But by October the Chinese had entered, and there was no denying that it was a genuine war—with genuine casualties reported daily in the press. Despite the rhetoric that the United States needed to contain the spread of vile communism, by the time of the 1952 campaign the war had become a stalemate in a far off land and the nation had grown tired. To make matters worse for Democrats (who were shackled by the war) Eisenhower, in the last weeks before Election Day, announced “I will go to Korea.” To most Americans, the implication was clear: The great general would deal with this awful problem.

How does a newly-elected president stop an unpopular war? The nation might be asking that question after November 4, 2008. Ike went to Korea in late November 1952, just after the election, as promised. But as president-elect he could do nothing except boost the national morale. To most Americans, however, it seemed to be a signal that he would end the war. And he did that—probably as soon as he reasonably could, in about six months after his inauguration. There were those at the time (particularly those on the right in Ike’s own party) who insisted that the U.S. should have initiated a total war (a euphemism for nuclear weapons) and driven the communists off the Korean Peninsula and even out of China. And there are still those today who argue that the world’s problems with North Korea have developed from that premature armistice signed in July 1953 that ended the Korean War, but that allowed the Stalinist regime to continue above the 38th Parallel. Perhaps there are lessons here for the next president: One candidate wants to end an ill-conceived and unpopular war. The other would say that a premature end to the war would bring on additional problems for the future, and that the nation should carry the war to its final conclusions—despite the cost.

It was Eisenhower—the Republican, man with the military background, the man who orchestrated the liberation of Europe—who ended the nasty war in Korea, the war that the Democrats had started and could not end.

Gary A. Donaldson is professor of history at Xavier University of Louisiana and author, most recently, of The First Modern Campaign: Kennedy, Nixon, and the Election of 1960.

Hillary Isn’t The First Woman in Nomination at a Convention

By Nichola D. Gutgold

That Hillary Clinton’s name is being placed in nomination at the 2008 Democratic National Convention next week in Denver is the subject of much controversy. “Hillary Haters” are pointing to the ongoing Clinton drama. “Hillary Lovers” are rejoicing that Hillary Clinton is being recognized for her historic presidential bid. I propose a middle ground: While Hillary Clinton’s bid is historic in a multitude of ways—love her or hate her—there is actually precedence for her name to be placed in nomination.

At the Cow Palace in San Francisco on July 15, 1964, Margaret Chase Smith, the reserved Republican Maine Senator who made a bid for the presidency, was greeted with cheers from a reception of supporters who declared: “She is still in the race!” Vermont Senator George Aiken nominated her at the convention, and one admirer noted that “Every woman, Republican and Democrat, owes a debt of gratitude to Margaret Chase Smith because she has opened the door for a woman to serve in the Presidency.” By the end of the convention, Margaret Chase Smith came in second with twenty-seven delegates by the final vote. She offered advice to future candidates when she said, “If I were to run again, I would organize every state and go for the delegates at least two years in advance.”

Eight years later, New York Congresswoman, the “unbought and unbossed” Shirley Chisholm, received 151 of the delegates’ votes at the convention in Miami. She wanted to affect political change with the power of her delegates. At a speech she said: “I’m just so thankful that in spite of the differences of opinions, the differences of ideology, and even sometimes within the women’s movement the differences of approaches, that here we are today at a glorious gathering of women in Miami.”

Fast forward to 2008—and Hillary Clinton will have her name placed in nomination at the Democratic National Convention. This isn’t a sign of weakness on the part of Barack Obama, as some pundits have suggested. Instead, he is honoring her remarkable achievement, recognizing precedence for this, and paying proper tribute to it. In addition, the 18 million votes that Clinton received – more than any other woman vying for the White House – deserves recognition. Remember, she almost won. Almost winning is more than any other woman in American political history. Hillary Clinton is making history and she is supporting the presumptive nominee, Barack Obama. Larry Scanlon, political director of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, said: "She sought to be the first woman nominated for president. She came up a little short, but she made it easier for the next female candidate to get the brass ring. Many in the Democratic Party would like to celebrate that. I think that they should celebrate that.” Hillary Clinton is not stealing Barack Obama’s thunder, and she isn’t creating divisiveness within the Democratic party. A convention is a celebration and there is much to celebrate about Hillary Clinton’s historic and very successful bid for the presidency.

Indeed, as the first woman in American history to compete so closely for the nomination for president, Hillary Clinton has come closer to shattering the glass ceiling than any woman before her. After eight years in the White House as first lady and senator from New York, she was one of America’s top Democrats and one of the most famous women in the world. Whether you are a “Hillary Lover” or a “Hillary Hater” (we need new terms – how about “Hillary Hover” or “Hillary Later”?), it is undeniable that Hillary Clinton’s bid for the presidency has helped to move women and presidential politics forward. Marian Wright Edelman once remarked: “You cannot be what you cannot see.” Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s presidential bids brought to life the belief that in American you can be anything you want to be. A roll call for Senator Clinton at the convention is the final piece of the story that needs to be told at the convention for her achievement to be properly recognized.

Nichola D. Gutgold is author of Paving the Way for Madam President (Lexington Books, 2006,) and Seen and Heard: The Women of Television News (Lexington Books, 2008.) She is at work on a book about the presidential bid of Hillary Clinton.

Mythbusting: What to Look for in this Year's “Veepstakes"

By Jody C. Baumgartner

The "veepstakes" is a wildly popular presidential election year pastime of political gurus and observers. It's so much fun that speculation for 2008 actually began last year! Most predictions are fairly well informed, but one analyst has referred to it—not unfairly—as a "largely fact-free parlor game." So why do we need another voice weighing in? We don't, and, therefore I won't. I can, however, briefly outline the factors that go into selecting a running mate. The choice is more complex than most pundits suggest. Using statistical analyses of those who were and were not chosen for VP since 1960, I have identified those factors that seem to be important in the selection process, as well as those that can be relegated to the dustbin of "myth."

In the case of the latter, size of state and ideological balance may not be as important as they once were (recall Clinton's selection of Gore in 1992), although they cannot be dismissed. In addition, despite media hype about about adding gender, racial, ethnic, or religious balance to the ticket, none of these factors seem to significant either. While we have seen many former governors in the past few decades select a Washington insider to give the ticket "insider-outsider" balance, this factor is also statistically insignificant. Finally, the notion that a strong primary challenger is an obvious choice for VP needs to be qualified. Bitter rivals will not be selected, because a certain chemistry needs to exist between a president and a VP. Strong primary challengers that bow out and start backing the nominee early (George H.W. Bush, 1980; John Edwards, 2004) have a chance of being selected.

What does seem to matter, perhaps more than coming from a large state, is coming from a competitive state the ticket hopes to win. Other desirable characteristics are youth and military experience. One largely ignored factor is having been well vetted in the national media. Few presidential candidates want a repeat of the media brouhaha that followed the surprise discovery in 1972 that George McGovern's choice (Thomas Eagleton), had been treated for mental illness. Finally, since the VP is the successor to the president in the event of a presidential vacancy, it is important to select someone who has a fair amount of experience in public office. There are other factors that go into selecting a vice presidential candidate, but these are difficult to generalize about. An uninspiring candidate (e.g., Bob Dole, John Kerry) might look to a more energetic running mate (Jack Kemp, John Edwards) to add vitality to the ticket. These factors, however, are specific to particular presidential candidates.

While the list of names that veepstakes participants were floating for Barack Obama and John McCain's running mates originally numbered well over four dozen apiece, as the end of July, the actual short lists have reportedly been whittled down to about six for each. While both candidates are being quite secretive, reports from the Obama camp suggest that his list includes Gov. Tim Kaine (VA), Sen. Evan Bayh (IN), Sen. Joe Biden (DE), Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (KS), and former senators John Edwards (NC) and Sam Nunn (GA). (I should note that John Edwards never had a serious chance at being selected as Obama's VP pick. In this country we rarely give people second chances at this level. After this weekend's admission of sexual indiscretion, Edwards’s chances went from almost to absolute zero.) Presumably, Hillary Clinton is also still being considered. McCain's search has supposedly been narrowed to Gov. Tim Pawlenty (MN), former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, former governor Mitt Romney (MA), Gov. Sarah Palin (AK), Sen. Joseph Lieberman (CT), and former governor Tom Ridge (PA).

So who will be selected? Again, my predictions aren't needed. Many people, however, who are still playing the veepstakes game are basing predictions on characteristics that have been shown to be insignificant in the process—in other words, myths.

Jody C. Baumgartner is assistant professor of political science at East Carolina University and co-author, with Peter L. Francia, of Conventional Wisdom and American Elections: Exploding Myths, Exploring Misconceptions (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007)

Obama’s Travels

By Stephen J. Farnsworth

For the John McCain campaign, Barak Obama’s trip to Europe last week was a lesson in being careful for what one wishes.

Over the past several months, the Illinois Senator and all-but-certain Democratic presidential nominee has faced attacks about what critics say is his inability to handle foreign and military matters, first from Democratic rival Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York in the primaries and now from his likely Republican general election rival, the senior senator from Arizona.

McCain has attacked Obama for an allegedly defeatist and naïve approach to the Middle East, a sharp contrast to the experience and the toughness that McCain says will enable him to deal with one of the world’s most dangerous regions. A few weeks ago, Republicans were gleefully counting the number of days it had been since Obama had been to Iraq or Afghanistan and regularly urged him to visit both countries as soon as possible.

After having focused so much attention on Obama’s need to travel, the McCain campaign spent much of last week complaining about the heavy media attention the trip received. All three network anchors accompanied Obama, not exactly a surprise given its importance in the campaign – an importance magnified by past Republican taunts.

While there, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki all but endorsed Obama, and spoke gushingly of the Democrat’s plan for rapid troop withdrawals starting next year. For the Bush administration and for McCain, the Iraqi leader’s about-face undermined Republican arguments that Obama did not know what he was talking about on Iraq. Al-Maliki, who owes his position to the Bush administration’s actions, apparently had little interest in appearing grateful.

For Obama, though, the best was yet to come. Rather than simply satisfy Republican demands that he visit Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama doubled-down on the foreign policy question, traveling to Israel as well as Germany, France and the United Kingdom. His Berlin speech generated extreme public enthusiasm—and a massive crowd. His meeting with French President Nicolas Sarkozy—a conservative and one of the few foreign leaders invited to visit Bush at his family’s Maine estate—generated a highly animated near-endorsement.

“If he is chosen, then France will be delighted,” Sarkozy said following a brief meeting with the senator.

While Obama’s campaign has generated more news media coverage than has McCain, in recent weeks the Republican has benefited from less negative media treatment. A new Center for Media and Public Affairs study looking at network news coverage between June 8, the day after Hillary Clinton conceded the Democratic nomination, and July 21, as Obama began his overseas trip, found that 28 percent of the statements about him on ABC, CBS and NBC were positive in tone, as compared to 43 percent positive statements relating to McCain.

While enthusiastic German crowds, supportive Iraqi leaders and caffeinated French presidents do not determine US presidential elections, the pictures and sound bites from the Democrat’s road trip undermines the McCain campaign’s claim that the newly minted US senator – he has been in Washington only since 2004 – can’t handle global matters.

These are tough times for McCain. Gallup tracking polls conducted over the weekend show that Obama had opened up a 49 percent to 40 percent advantage, the highest number for Obama, the lowest number for McCain and the largest gap between the two during July.

Fortunately for McCain, polls also show that Americans care a lot more about gas prices than Iraqi prime ministers.

Stephen J. Farnsworth teaches courses in media politics and journalism at George Mason University, where he is assistant professor of communication. He is co-author, with S. Robert Lichter, of The Nightly News Nightmare: Television’s Coverage of U.S. Presidential Elections, 1988-2004.

Hillary Clinton’s Loss is a Victory for Women and Power in America

By Nichola D. Gutgold

Hillary Clinton's campaign for president started when she ran for senate. Though it wasn't the official start of her presidential campaign it was the moment when most Americans, and rhetorical scholars realized: "She's serious; she does want to run for office, and maybe she won't stop with the senate. Maybe she wants to be president." And of course, we all know, that yes, Hillary Clinton would like to be President of the United States.

Given America's very nervous relationship with women and power and the Hillary hating that has practically been a national pastime since Hillary Clinton became first lady, no one should have expected that her presidential bid, and all the images that a media obsessed nation could provide, would be less than provocative.

There has been non-stop commentary on Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid on the Internet, late night television and on the news and parody-news shows. Some was clearly sexist (The Facebook Group “Hillary stop running for President and make me a sandwich”); some that was cruel (Rush Limbaugh’s aging woman remark); Some that was hilariously funny (Saturday Night Live bits); and some that was serious and important (the nuances of her healthcare reform; her stance on the Iraq war; the economy). All the commentary forced us to think a lot about how we feel about women-- especially a former first lady that has been called “The Lady Macbeth of Little Rock”-- who makes a bid to be the leader of the free world. Everything from the necklines of her clothing (Cleavage-gate); and her laugh, (The Clinton Cackle); the Apple-computer commercial inspired homage; The (alleged) Cry; the post-S.C. primary where Bill Clinton compared Obama to Jesse Jackson; The Bosnia Trip Exaggeration; and the Political Cartoons (one most recently that had her searching for delegates on Mars). In a campaign season teeming with symbolism and imagery and firsts, there was no shortage of ways to interpret the presidential bid of Hillary Clinton. And it lives on, because everyone has You Tube immortality.

The day of Hillary Clinton’s presidential announcement arrived on January 20, 2007. Seated on a stylish sofa in a well appointed room, the former first lady and Senator of New York invited Americans to "have a conversation." She promised that her bid was serious and that she was "in to win." Well, we could have predicted that the tension between those wanting to support Hillary Clinton and those wanting to criticize
her would be intense.

Catalyst, a group that studies women’s economic advancement, notes the double bind of women leaders. In the report, the oldest stereotypes are revealed again in the newest research: “When women act in gender-consistent ways—that is, in a cooperative, relationship-focused manner—they are perceived as ‘too soft’ a leader….When women act in gender-inconsistent ways—that is, when they act authoritatively, show ambition, and focus on the task—they are viewed as “too tough.” …they might be acting leader-like, but not lady-like. Hillary Clinton had a tough job to counter the double bind of being a woman leader. Perhaps especially for one who was First Lady first.

We must not forget for a moment the historical significance of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. She navigated a difficult gender terrain that directly confronted the challenges that women have faced in their bids for elective office. John McCain noted: “I have great respect for her tenacity and courage. The media often overlooked how compassionately she spoke to the concerns and dreams of millions of Americans, and she deserves a lot more appreciation than she sometimes received. As the father of three daughters, I owe her a debt for inspiring millions of women to believe there is no opportunity in this great country beyond their reach.” Barack Obama noted: “Senator Hillary Clinton has made history not just because she’s a woman who has done what no woman has done before, but because she is a leader who inspired millions of Americans with her strength, her courage, and her commitment to the causes that brought us here tonight.” Indeed, as the first woman in American history to compete so closely for the nomination for president, Hillary Clinton has come closer to shattering the glass ceiling than any woman before her, including Margaret Chase Smith, Shirley Chisholm, Pat Schroeder, Elizabeth Dole and Carol Moseley Braun. And 18 million votes later she didn’t win the nomination, but what she won is a victory for women in America that extends far beyond one presidential cycle. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, by being seen and heard in their history making campaigns have likely inspired one of our children with her phrase: “See, you can be anything you want to be.” Sometimes not winning still offers a grand prize.

Nichola D. Gutgold is associate professor of Communication Arts and Sciences at Penn State Lehigh Valley and author of Paving the Way for Madam President (Lexington Books, 2006) and Seen and Heard: The Women of Television News (Lexington Books, 2008).

Message Control Gets Honorable Mention in ForeWord Magazine's 2007 Book of the Year Awards

Message Control: How News Is Made on the Presidential Campaign Trail by Elizabeth A. Skewes was given an Honorable Mention in the Political Science Category of the 2007 ForeWord Magazine Book of the Year Awards.

Obama and the South

by Charles S. Bullock, III

The South, which for generations served as the base for the Democratic Party, has now been solidly in the GOP column for most of the last 40 years, largely in presidential elections. In only three of the last ten presidential elections have more than one southern state voted for the Democratic presidential nominee. When Democrats get shut out of the states of the old Confederacy, they must win 70 percent of the electors from the rest of the nation to capture the White House. The Democratic road to the White House becomes smoother if they can take some states from the “Solid Republican South” thereby reducing the share of the rest of the nation they must win.

Barack Obama’s best prospects this year are Virginia and Florida. The Sunshine State has been closely contested in each of the last two presidential elections and will likely be so again in 2008. Florida’s diverse electorate that includes many who have come from other parts of the country helped reelect Bill Clinton and might back Obama.

Democrats have won Virginia’s last two gubernatorial elections. Senator Jim Webb ended George Allen’s presidential ambitions in 2006, and the Old Dominion seems poised to replace retiring Senator John Warner (R) with Mark Warner (D) this fall. Democrats also managed to take back control of the state Senate last year for the first time since 1993. Partisan changes emanating out from Washington may make Obama the first Democrat since Lyndon Johnson to carry Virginia.

Even if Obama fails to carry a single southern state, his efforts this year can help his party rebound from a series of weak performances extending back to at least 1994, when Democrats lost control of the South's House and Senate delegations. Strong Democratic turnout might help some marginal members hold on to congressional seats. Republicans had hoped to recapture seats held by Tom DeLay (TX), Mark Foley (FL), and Charles Taylor (NC), but lost in 2006. They also hoped to retain the Florida seat that Vern Buchanan won by just a few hundred votes in a contested election. Democrats may win all of these seats if Obama inspires additional Democrats to go to the polls.

Other Democrats like Georgia’s John Barrow and Jim Marshall, who represent districts with sizable black populations, may be able to breathe easier. In 2006 these members of Congress won reelection by fewer than 2,000 votes. The Democrat whose reelection to the Senate seems most precarious, Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu, might be another beneficiary of an enthusiastic response to the Obama candidacy.

Heightened Democratic turnout may have similar beneficiaries in southern legislatures. In states that have been trending Republican the drift may be reversed. In states where Republicans have now taken control of the legislative branch, Democrats may succeed in displacing some Republicans.

The only problem in the scenario set forth above comes if Obama’s candidacy stimulates an equal or greater reaction among conservative voters. A conservative backlash–-which did not develop in the special congressional elections recently won by Democrats in Louisiana and Mississippi—might offset the increases in Democratic registration

CHARLES S. BULLOCK, III, is the Richard B. Russell Professor of Political Science and Josiah Meigs Distinguished Teaching Professor at the University of Georgia. He is co-editor, with Mark J. Rozell, of The New Politics of the Old South: An Introduction To Southern Politics, Third Edition (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007) and co-author, with Ronald Keith Gaddie, of Elections to Open Seats in the U.S. House (Rowman & Littlefield, 2000).