Many experts predict Iraq will be the top issue in the 2008 campaign, much as it was when President Bush won re-election in 2004.

"The war is the overriding issue," said Allan Lichtman, a presidential historian at American University in Washington, D.C. "Whenever there is a war that becomes the issue for a generation. Unless of course there is a recession and that might overshadow the war, but nobody knows whether that is going to happen or not."

Some Republicans believe the improved security situation in Iraq could help whoever becomes the Republican Party's presidential nominee next year. But Lichtman believes the Democratic nominee will have an advantage with independent voters going into the 2008 campaign.

"The recent situation may have slightly improved for the administration, but that has mainly moved Republicans," he said. "It has not moved Democrats at all and has not caused much movement among independents. And Republican votes [alone] are not going to be good enough for a presidential candidate [to win] in 2008."

Iraq remains a central issue in the battle for the Democratic Party nomination where Senator Hillary Clinton of New York continues to lead the field in public opinion polls.

Some of Clinton's rivals question her initial support of the war.

"It has not faded as an issue among Democratic activists," said Stephen Wayne, a professor of government at Georgetown University in Washington. "It has faded as a salient issue among the country for the simple reason that the Congress is divided and the Democrats do not seem to be able to win any votes and there seems to be a pessimism that there is no way they can stop Bush, and that the only way to change Iraq is when we have a new president."

Iraq, Iran and other foreign policy issues are getting a lot of attention on the campaign trail, especially in early voting states like Iowa and New Hampshire.

"The war in Iraq and the war on terror and Iran and nuclear weapons are things that are looming in front of people and they are concerned about it," said Arthur Sanders, a political scientist at Drake University in Iowa. "You know, when candidates go to these [voter] forums, they get asked about that."

Those same issues are being discussed in New Hampshire as well. But Democrats there are also concerned with supporting a candidate who can win the general election in November of 2008.

"So, you see Iraq, but also typical Democratic concerns such as health care, for example, are on the list," said Dante Scala, who lectures on politics at the University of New Hampshire. "But given that candidates wind up having more or less similar positions on a host of issues, I think it does come down to factors such as personality and perceived electability."

Many experts believe the mix of issues at the moment favors the Democrats.

"They [Democrats] have many advantages, not least that we have had one party in power for eight years," said Larry Sabato, who directs the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. "Americans like to change, normally, after eight years, but we do not always do it. Second, there is no question that the president's unpopularity, which stems mainly from Iraq but also from (the response to Hurricane) Katrina and other events is going to be an albatross around the neck of any Republican nominee."

But Republican strategists say that the Democrat's advantage on the issues could change if the focus of the campaign turns to national security and the war on terror.

"The way that they [Republicans] might [gain an advantage] would be to paint a Democrat as being weak or inexperienced on foreign policy in general, not just Iraq, and the war on terror," said John Fortier, who monitors presidential politics at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington.

Illegal immigration is another issue that could ignite passions in both the early primaries and in the general election campaign.

"Immigration has been an issue that has erupted periodically, and I think as an undercurrent is quite important," said Steffen Schmidt, a professor of political science at Iowa State University. "It is not as visible as some of the other issues on a day to day basis, but I know from talking to many activists that it is very, very important."

Recent national surveys suggest the war in Iraq and domestic concerns about health care, the economy and jobs top the list of voter priorities as the election cycle approaches.

In our final report in the series, a look at the possibility of a major third party candidate in next year's election.

Source :

Although Democrats call their wins in Congress in 2006 “historic,” their thirty-seat win in the House came nowhere near the fifty-four seat swap that Republicans managed in 1994. The cornerstone of Republican wins in 1994 was taking a decisive majority of seats that were left open by retiring Democratic incumbents, many of whom were embattled in the bank scandals. In 2006, members of Republican leadership, such as then-Speaker Dennis Hastert, were credited with encouraging fellow Republicans to seek re-election to prevent more open seats that could have advantaged Democrats, thereby blunting the number of seats that could have been lost.

In 2008, however, already greater numbers of Republican incumbents from vulnerable districts, many of whom were serving in the minority for the first time, have announced that they will retire rather than seek re-election. Included in this category are Rep. Deborah Pryce of Ohio, who is retiring, and Rep. Heather Wilson of New Mexico, who is leaving her House seat to run for Senate. Both Pryce and Wilson barely squeaked past 50% in 2006 in two of the closest races in the country. Still other Republicans, including Reps. Jim Ramstad of Minnesota, Jerry Weller of Illinois, and Ralph Regula of Ohio will be retiring in suburban districts nearly evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, where Democrats can yield top-tier candidates.

Still others, like Bill Young of Florida and Tom Davis of Virginia, could choose to leave evenly divided districts to retire or seek a different office, causing the number of open seats to grow. Because the wave of retirements that allowed the Republicans to take the majority in 1994 did not happen for Democrats in 2006, some consider Democratic wins in 2006 to be a two-part cycle that will conclude with Republican retirements in 2008, which could cause Democrats to win nearly as many seats in 2008 as they already did in 2006.

These trends should be especially troubling for Republicans because the lines of House districts drawn for the 2000’s were drawn in Republicans’ favor to either defend Republican incumbents or add to the Republican majority. Congressional district lines are drawn by state legislatures with governors’ approval, and in 2006, Republicans lost control of three state senates, six state assemblies, and six governorships. For the first time since 1994, Democrats now hold a majority of the nation’s governors. When the 2010 census gives states the ability to redraw the lines of the House of Representatives districts, Democrats will have much greater power to influence those lines than they did for the 2000 census, entrenching Democratic gains in 2006 and 2008.

Thinking strategically, to have the best chance at retaking the House, Republicans should focus on retaking state legislatures and governorships to redraw lines from the 2020 census in their favor.

On the other side of the Capitol building, Republicans are in many ways both closer to and farther from retaking the Senate. Of the thirty-three senators elected in 2006, Republicans were only able to take nine. This was especially damaging because Democrats already held a majority of Senate seats in the 2006 cycle, because 2000, the last year those seats were up for election, was a good year for Democrats. The next two election cycles, in 2008 and in 2010, follow on elections held for those cycles in 2002 and in 2004, which were both extremely strong years for Republicans. For example, of senators up for election in 2008, Republicans have to defend twenty-two seats, while Democrats need only defend twelve, giving them a far greater opportunity to go on the offensive. Indeed, the only seats held by Democrats that are considered even marginally competitive are in South Dakota and Louisiana, while Republicans are either already the underdog or at least face credible challenges in Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Virginia, and others.

Further, Republican senators also face the problem of retirements: for the first time since 1958, one party, the Republicans, has five more open seats from retirements than the other party. In 1958, Republicans also had five more open seats to defend than the Democrats, who ended up taking thirteen seats from Republicans that year. No Democrat up for election in 2008 has announced a retirement, while Republicans in Colorado, Idaho, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Virginia all have.

Because Republicans have Senate cycles coming up in 2008 and 2010 where they will have far more seats to defend than Democrats, they will have scarce opportunity to retake the majority. On the other hand, when 2012 comes around, it is the Democrats who will be on the defense. Republicans will have plenty of opportunities in a cycle in which they only have nine seats to defend.

Prospects for Republicans to retake the majority in Congress look slim for the remainder of the decade. As a result, Republican campaign organizations should adopt a defensive strategy to merely cope through the coming cycles. The most urgent area to go on the offensive is races for state legislatures and governors. If Republicans can take back more state legislatures and governors’ mansions, they will have a stronger hand to redraw congressional district lines in their favor in 2010. Still, opportunities to retake the majority will not come until 2012 at the earliest. As part of the defensive strategy, national organizations need to use their resources wisely while rebuilding their infrastructure, concentrating on only very competitive races, such as one waged by former state Assemblyman Dean Andal against local Democratic Rep. Jerry McNerney, who indeed represents a Republican district. Spreading resources too thin could make the road back to a Republican majority even longer than it already is.

Source :

As is typical of Economist articles, it contained little nuance and made a strong case. Yet, even though the U.S. election is more than a year away, the sentiment is one which is starting to make its way into the American political establishment.

Two developments over the last few months have led Mrs. Clinton to become the odds-on favourite for the presidency. First is that she has taken a clear lead in the campaign for the Democratic nomination. She has edged past Barack Obama, who still draws crowds but has fallen behind her in fund-raising. And polls indicate that among Democratic supporters, she now enjoys a strong lead ahead of next winter's primaries and caucuses.

Not impressed

The second is that the Republican Party appears, at least for now, to be splintering. No one candidate has yet excited the party's imagination, let alone that of the wider the public. Moreover, the supposed base animated by the presidency of George W. Bush is less than impressed with the leading Republican candidates. There is a real danger to the party if it nominates a candidate that conservative Christians don't like, only to see them stay at home next year.

Yet the candidates that conservative Christian leaders do like, enjoy little support outside the party. Even within the party, there is a growing divide between old-fashioned conservatives and the current crop of neo-cons around the president - hardly a new divide, but one that has been exacerbated by this administration. And among evangelical Christians, who were so instrumental to Mr. Bush's two election victories, sentiment splits. Some want the party to broaden beyond the traditional-values agenda it has promoted, and there are even some signs of drift towards the Democratic Party.

Mr. Bush hasn't done his party many favours, either. Beloved though he may be of conservative Christians, his presidency is disliked by mostly everyone else. The number of Americans who now declare themselves to be Republicans has sunk to levels which would make it all but impossible for the party to win the next election.

So it all looks to be over. Instead, pundits can begin debating what Bill will get up to now that Hilary gets to select the interns.

I am always puzzled by this proclivity to declare U.S. elections over well before time, as if nothing can be expected to happen between now and November 2008. It's not as if journalists have no experience with this. I remember when Bill Clinton was declared all but dead in 1992; when Al Gore was declared unstoppable in 2000; and when Howard Dean - remember Howard Dean? - was virtually handed the Democratic nomination by journalists about this time four years ago.

Harold Wilson said it best: a week is a long time in politics. That makes a year an eternity. True, if things continue the way they are going, a Clinton presidency looks likely. If there are no surges in the Democratic race, because it does seem unlikely Hilary Clinton will stumble now, and if the Republicans cannot coalesce around a nominee, then the betting is probably reasonable.

But those two 'ifs' are big indeed. And all this optimism brushes aside Mrs. Clinton's highly problematic 'negatives' - the fact that not only do many Americans dislike her and her husband, but that the intensity of their dislike will turn them out to vote against her.

I wouldn't want to place this bet, at least not yet.

I was among many astounded by his comment. I wear a flag pin on the lapel of my suit coat, and have another on the collar of my casual jacket. I wear the pin proudly as a symbol of, not a substitute for, my patriotism.

I believe this country needs more people to wear flag pins, fly the flag at their homes and insist that the flag be shown proper respect whenever and wherever it is displayed.

I have been referred to as a “super patriot” and a “flag waver” etc., and I proudly accept those names. Instead of apologizing for insulting those of us who do wear a flag pin or display our flags at home, perhaps Senator Obama needs a lesson in exactly what the flag means to the United States.

Hillary and NAFTA: Playing the Shell Game

Many can recall that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was heralded as one of Bill Clinton’s greatest domestic achievements as president. In the more recent past, Hillary Clinton spoke out on NAFTA, proposing that it and all other trade agreements be re-visited every five years with an eye on re-evaluating the U.S. position. This was, I believe, an obvious ploy to gain union support for her campaign.

How?

As far as NAFTA and other trade agreements are concerned, it means there would be a remote and far-flung possibility that they could be changed or even cancelled. Even the greasiest wheels in Washington move slowly, and it could well be into Hillary’s second term (if there is one) before anything meaningful regarding trade is looked at – and well after her second term before any action takes place. In other words, because she knows how Washington works, no one can point to her and say she made an idle campaign promise.

To U.S. union members, however, there would be nothing happening in the near future for them as far as all this is concerned. In fact, it could be five or ten years down the road – if ever – before the promise made to them comes true. In the meantime, Hillary receives their votes – the main reason for her announcement in the first place.

Dollars and Sense

Dollars

Several columns back, I wrote about the donations received by the Democrats and the Republicans. Here is a brief update on a few of those numbers.

At the end of the third quarter, Hillary Clinton raised more than $90 million dollars total for the first three quarters. It goes without saying that by the end of the year she will likely raise considerably more than $100 million. Where does the majority of this money come from? The answer is simple: Hollywood celebrities, labor unions, trial attorneys and other wealthy donors with an agenda.

The DNC has enriched their coffers by $100 million more than the RNC has thus far in 2007. Where have these funds come from? Liberal special interest groups and organizations like MoveOn.org.

Sense

You may be asking yourself: Where is the sense in all this? Rest assured it is not only to help propel Hillary Clinton or another Democrat into the Oval Office in 2008. It is also to defeat all Republicans in 2008 and beyond. The Republicans, on the other hand, do not appear to have mounted a counter attack strong enough to overcome the Democrat campaign machine and its huge amounts of money. Time is passing quickly, and I can’t see what they are waiting for. Can you?

Nobel, but No Bounce, for Gore

Now that Al Gore has won the Nobel Peace Prize that everyone knew he was going to win on the day the nominations were announced, the Internet is buzzing with the big question: will Gore pursue the Democrat nomination for president?

The question is probably more on the mind of every Democrat candidate – especially those with lower poll numbers than Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama – than the mind of the individual voter. If Gore decides to renege on his statement that he would not seek the presidency, candidates from John Edwards down to Mike Gravel will be history. Obama would also feel the heat, and with his problems of late, he may want to start hoping that whoever wins the nomination will pick him as a running mate.

While Al Gore is still denying he will throw his hat in the ring as of this writing, his loyal supporters are still crying foul for the 2000 election and are talking him up big time. (Interestingly, post-prize poll data indicates that overall support for his potential candidacy remains limited.)

It would be interesting if the nomination came down to a close choice between Gore and Clinton. There is no love lost between the Clintons and Gores since Gore’s tenure as Vice President under Bill Clinton.

On a side note, former President Jimmy Carter said of Al Gore, “I think he is the best qualified person to be President”. That in itself says volumes!

File this in the “we will see” category.

It Makes You Wonder

I have previously noted that the former senator from Alaska, Mike Gravel, never had a chance to make it even close to the “top tier” of Democrat candidates vying for nomination. Now it appears his own party may want him off the candidate list completely.

Last week the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) sent out a fundraising mailer to prospective donors listing seven candidates from which to choose their favorite for the nomination. Mike Gravel was not included.

The DCCC claims it was an oversight. However, one has to wonder if it was insight as to how the DCCC feels about Gravel’s poor attitude toward the Democrat-led Congress!

More Internet Resources for You

Are you looking for more information on the 2008 election? Here are several website with a generally non-partisan view that you may find useful:

OVAL OFFICE 2008

In existence since January 2005, Oval Office 2008 aims to be completely non-partisan in content and analysis. It also gives a different point of view, as the site is owned by a blogger in the U.K.

In addition to interesting and thought provoking articles, there is a forum, items sold in their store are used to rank the candidates (very poor and slanted to the Left), and includes links to other sites.

2008--ELECTION

This site has an ever-expanding resource directory for 2008 election data in addition to several other clickable choices. It has everything from candidate biographies to links that lead to historical election information. You’ll also find timelines for primaries, conventions and listings on “potential candidates” discussed but not declared.

POLITICAL MEDIA LINKS

At the top of this site’s home page is the statement: We have Left, Right and Center. The site lists many top political columnists and media outlets on the Web, including magazines, newspapers, syndicated columnists, websites, political organizations, political message boards, forums and humor sites. While large, the listing is no way complete. However, it will give the reader a cross-view on just about any issue. I book marked this site long ago, and recommend that you do the same.

On the thousands of web pages, acres of newsprint and hours of airtime already devoted to the long race to the White House, two subjects get most attention: how and when to end the war in Iraq and how healthcare should be paid for.

But another issue is gaining prominence, one which is of much greater significance to the rest of the world.

Indeed, it is one that could have profound implications for the global economy.

The issue is free trade.

President Bush devoted his most recent weekly radio address to lauding the benefit America gets from free trade deals.

"Millions of American jobs depend on exports," he said.

"More exports support better and higher-paying jobs - and to keep our economy expanding, we need to keep expanding trade."

Faltering idea?

Mr Bush's immediate priority is persuading Congress to approve his administration's latest free trade pacts with Colombia, Peru, Panama and South Korea.

But his remarks are also part of a more general debate that is unfolding in the US about whether free trade is in the country's interest at all.

America, it seems, is experiencing a revival of protectionism.

Almost all of the candidates vying to be the Democratic Party's presidential nominee next year have adopted stances that flatly contradict the current president's fondness for free trade deals.

Front-runner Hilary Clinton wants all free trade deals to be revised every five years, including those that were negotiated by her husband's administration.

John Edwards, currently placed third among the Democratic hopefuls, has gone so far as to question how committed Americans really are to global trade.

"Trade has become a bad word for working Americans," he recently declared.

That, of course, is campaign rhetoric designed to appeal to Democrat voters.

Voter worries

What of the Republicans? Surely they share their president's belief in the benefits of free trade? Perhaps not.

A recent Wall Street Journal poll found 60% of Republican voters think free trade is bad for America.

In contrast to the Democrats and their close ties to the trade unions, the Republican Party has a long tradition of pushing the agenda of American business.

So if two-thirds of Republican voters do not think it is a good idea, then the cause of free trade could be in real trouble in the world's biggest economy.

Most economists have no doubt that the US has benefited hugely from the global reduction of tariffs and the removal of other trade barriers over the last two decades.

Many also argue that it would profit even more if the remaining barriers were to be taken down.

Economic boost

Gary Hufbauer at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington devotes much of his research to measuring the impact of trade policy on the US economy.

He has calculated that if the US could negotiate free trade deals with all of its trading partners it would add between $450bn and $600bn (£220bn to £294bn) to the value of US output.

Divide that across the population and global free trade could make every household in the country up to $5,300 (£2,600) richer each year.

If economists are so convinced of the benefits of free trade, why aren't American voters?

The answer, of course, is that those combined benefits are not necessarily felt by individuals.

Instead, what many Americans, including US business owners, notice is that trade with other countries can make them poorer.

Manufacturing woes

Take Brian O'Shaughnessy, head of Revere Copper, which makes copper products for industrial customers around the world.

Mr O'Shaughnessy's company was founded in 1801 and is, he says, the oldest manufacturer in the US.

But the grand heritage has not saved it from the problems that have ravaged the American manufacturing sector.

This year, one of Revere's two plants has closed and Mr O'Shaughnessy has had to lay off 85 workers.

He believes this was a direct result of US policies, which make it too easy for foreign competitors to sell their products in America at his expense.

"I believe that there is no such thing as free trade", Mr O'Shaughnessy said.

"I believe that trade must be rules-based and that the rules must be fair."

To him the free trade deals negotiated by the US government are patently unfair.

While they may have lowered tariffs, he is appalled by what he sees as foreign governments' use of other means to promote their industries at the expense of America's.

"The USA continues to negotiate free trade agreements without recognising how its trading partners simply bypass the tariff reduction measures by raising or initiating new taxes."

Given the experience of Mr O'Shaughnessy and many like him, it is little wonder that Democratic politicians are finding a sympathetic audience for their more protectionist message.

Big question

For the Republican candidates it represents a dilemma.

Do they abandon their party's proud tradition of supporting free trade, or do they risk seeming indifferent to the struggles of the businessmen and women for whom they have long presumed to speak?

For now, they are doggedly sticking to the position that tearing down the barriers to trade is always a good thing.

"We cannot stop doing business with the rest of the world," as leading candidate Rudy Giuliani stated in the recent Republican debate.

Yet in the same debate, weaker rival candidates sounded more sceptical notes about the benefits of trade.

So unfavourable were the comments that one candidate, Fred Thompson, said Ronald Reagan would be "spinning in his grave" to hear Republicans sounding protectionist.

And if the polls continue to show that a big majority of Republican voters think taking down trade barriers is bad for the country, it will be a very brave politician who does not tailor his position accordingly.

All of which raises the possibility that the next president of the US will be a lot less committed to free trade than either Presidents Bush or Clinton before them.

If that is the case, then a lot of the world's wealth could be riding on the political debates rumbling on in America.

As is typical of Economist articles, it contained little nuance and made a strong case. Yet, even though the U.S. election is more than a year away, the sentiment is one which is starting to make its way into the American political establishment.

Two developments over the last few months have led Mrs. Clinton to become the odds-on favourite for the presidency. First is that she has taken a clear lead in the campaign for the Democratic nomination. She has edged past Barack Obama, who still draws crowds but has fallen behind her in fund-raising. And polls indicate that among Democratic supporters, she now enjoys a strong lead ahead of next winter's primaries and caucuses.

Not impressed

The second is that the Republican Party appears, at least for now, to be splintering. No one candidate has yet excited the party's imagination, let alone that of the wider the public. Moreover, the supposed base animated by the presidency of George W. Bush is less than impressed with the leading Republican candidates. There is a real danger to the party if it nominates a candidate that conservative Christians don't like, only to see them stay at home next year.

Yet the candidates that conservative Christian leaders do like, enjoy little support outside the party. Even within the party, there is a growing divide between old-fashioned conservatives and the current crop of neo-cons around the president - hardly a new divide, but one that has been exacerbated by this administration. And among evangelical Christians, who were so instrumental to Mr. Bush's two election victories, sentiment splits. Some want the party to broaden beyond the traditional-values agenda it has promoted, and there are even some signs of drift towards the Democratic Party.

Mr. Bush hasn't done his party many favours, either. Beloved though he may be of conservative Christians, his presidency is disliked by mostly everyone else. The number of Americans who now declare themselves to be Republicans has sunk to levels which would make it all but impossible for the party to win the next election.

So it all looks to be over. Instead, pundits can begin debating what Bill will get up to now that Hilary gets to select the interns.

I am always puzzled by this proclivity to declare U.S. elections over well before time, as if nothing can be expected to happen between now and November 2008. It's not as if journalists have no experience with this. I remember when Bill Clinton was declared all but dead in 1992; when Al Gore was declared unstoppable in 2000; and when Howard Dean - remember Howard Dean? - was virtually handed the Democratic nomination by journalists about this time four years ago.

Harold Wilson said it best: a week is a long time in politics. That makes a year an eternity. True, if things continue the way they are going, a Clinton presidency looks likely. If there are no surges in the Democratic race, because it does seem unlikely Hilary Clinton will stumble now, and if the Republicans cannot coalesce around a nominee, then the betting is probably reasonable.

But those two 'ifs' are big indeed. And all this optimism brushes aside Mrs. Clinton's highly problematic 'negatives' - the fact that not only do many Americans dislike her and her husband, but that the intensity of their dislike will turn them out to vote against her.

I wouldn't want to place this bet, at least not yet.

She rejected criticism from rivals like fellow Democrats Barack Obama and John Edwards, who say she is too closely tied to Washington to bring about real change.
«I'm going to continue to attack the problems of America,» Clinton said. «I'm going to focus on what I would do as president.