Here’s the prompt … Look at page 2 of your syllabus, which includes our course objectives and also the notes you wrote on those objectives back in January.

Possible questions … feel free to answer one, some, or all:  How has your perspective on these objectives changed since January?  Which objective(s) now seems most meaningful to you?  Which objective(s) do you think you’ll continue working on?  Which ones do you understand better than you did in January?

I’m curious about a few things:

1) When we didn’t blog at the start of class on Thursday, people commented that it felt funny to start class without blogging. Can you discuss this more? What role has the blog played in our class, for you? What would have been different if the blog had been required, but I asked you to blog outside of our class time?

2) How much relationship has there been, for you, between your research project and our blog? I originally hoped that we’d use the blog to share and discuss sources for your research … however, it seems to me that they’ve kind of evolved as two separate “tracks” within the class. Do you have a similar impression? Do you think they should have been integrated more? Why/why not?

Thanks, everybody … I’ve really enjoyed this part of class.

Like most, I am unimpressed by the attacks the candidates are making on one another, and worry about the effect this will have on the general election. However, I think that this is bringing to the fore an issue that we don’t talk about enough during elections: socioeconomic class. My question is this: What do you see as each candidate’s (include any candidate who interests you, including Green, Republican, or independent candidates) stance on socioeconomic class? How much does the issue of class figure into your decision regarding which candidate to support?

I’m thinking back on many veiled remarks that have had to do with class in other elections … e.g. “VOTE OR DIE”; the accusations around Dean’s campaign of Volvos and lattes; Bill Clinton’s image of being a “man of the people”; Ross Perot’s ability to make a major run for President because of his tremendous personal wealth …

After you’ve posted your snapshot, select another classmate’s snapshot to respond to.

Penn’s plan for the Clinton campaign was to emphasis her experience (which doesn’t account for much these days)  and strength (yea right!). Penn also advised Hillary to focus her time and energy on larger states, but as has been seen in past primaries the small state victories for Obama has allow him to gain a seemingly unstoppable momentum in this election. Its not known for sure whether  Mark Penn was asked to step down or if his resignation was the final straw for him in a wilting campaign.

My question to this blog is do you feel that the reason that the Clinton campaign is struggling is due to Hillary’s choice to follow Mr. Penn’s advise without getting other opinions or is her demise the result of a trusted colleague not having her best interests at heart?

I believe Hillary when into this campaign with the assumption that she would do well with her political advisor and friend in her corner, but unfortunately this has come back to bit her in the butt (excuse my frankness). Mark Penn being a close associate of the Clinton’s for some many years should know what it takes to have a winning campaign. Perhaps in 1996 the part he played in the Bill Clinton’s election was to show the more personable side, but for Hillary this formula was kicked to the curb. The change in tactic may have been to ensure that her gender would not be an issue if she presented her self as a tough opponent; this obviously isn’t working. Unfortunately for Hillary even though Penn has been removed its probably too late for Hillary.

I was just looking through the blog site and stumbled on this article from CNNpolitics about Bill Clinton defending his wife Hillary’s ability to “roll with the punches” I pasted it below to read because I just wanted to expose it to the group.

THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL BLOG PROMPT

Written by: CNN Associate Political Editor Rebecca Sinderbrand

 Bill Clinton took aim at critics of his wife Hillary Clinton Wednesday, adding that “if a politician doesn’t wanna get beat up, he shouldn’t run for office.”

“If a politician doesn’t wanna get beat up, he shouldn’t run for office,” the former president said in Parkersburg, West Virginia. “If a football player doesn’t want to get tackled or want the risk of an occasional clip he shouldn’t put the pads on.”

“Clipping” is an illegal football maneuver where an offensive player blocks a defensive player from behind, or below the waist.

Clinton added that the recent rough tone of the campaign didn’t trouble him. “I don’t give a riff about all this name-calling that’s going on. They’ve been going on ever since Iowa. I’ve heard them say all these things about her,” he said. “Apparently it’s okay to say bad things about a girl.”

He added that the advisers on both campaigns who’d been forced to resign because of controversial comments should have stayed put.

“I don’t think any of these people oughta be asked to resign. All these guys that say bad things about any other campaign, they say, ‘Should they resign?’ My answer is no; they’re repeating party line. They oughta stay right where they are,” he said. “Let’s just saddle up and have an argument. What’s the matter with that? That’s what America’s about, right?”

“All this moaning and groaning — none of these politicians are gonna have anything like the tough time half the people in this audience have already had for the last seven years. This is about you. Don’t you let anybody take this election away from you.”

West Virginia votes May 13. Clinton complained today that the “glitterati” wanted to end the campaign before the state’s voters had a chance to weigh in because his wife had momentum. “In spite of the best efforts of a lot of the elites in the media and other places it looks like we are gonna have an opportunity for everybody to vote in this primary, and I think your vote should be counted, don’t you?

“I know Hillary’s gaining on them when they say, ‘Oh, let’s shut this down now; we don’t want to be divided. Let’s just disenfranchise several of the million people who could vote.

Wouldn’t you like to vote and have your votes counted? Wouldn’t you like to have a voice in this election? Don’t you think that your vote should count as much as the people who voted in Iowa first? Yeah, well so does Hillary.”

“The returns are complete, including all schedules, and are now available to anyone to view,” the campaign announced in a statement. “The Obama campaign urged Senator Clinton to join Senator Obama in making her returns public. Full disclosure on Senator Clinton’s part is especially important because she recently loaned $5 million to her campaign, shortly after revelations surfaced that her husband was to receive a $20 million payout from Yucaipa, a supermarket holding company that invests in tax shelters in the Cayman Islands.”

Obama and his wife Michelle reported joint income of $991,296 in 2006 (the most recent year released) which included $430,700 in salaries and $506,618 in reported business income.

In 2005, their income was $1,670,995 – a huge jump from 2004, when the couple reported earning $207,342. One interesting note, in 2006, the couple reported donating $60,307 to charity, including $22,500 to the Trinity United Church of Christ.

So far, Clinton has pledged to disclose hers at least three days before the Pennsylvania primary on April 22.

 Richardson’s name may sound familiar to some of you because he was a previous candidate for the presidency.  He abandoned his presidential bid January 10.  Obama and Clinton both lobbied Richardson for his endorsement after he dropped out of the race.  Richardson is the second former Democratic presidential contender to endorse Obama, after Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut. Two other former candidates, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, have remained neutral.

 Out of respect for a friend, Richardson called Hillary Clinton the day before he announced his decision.  The Clinton campaign shrugged off the endorsement, citing, “Both candidates have many great endorsers, but the voters, not endorsers, will decide this election, and there are still millions of voters in upcoming contests who want to have their voices heard.”  Although, another one of Clinton’s advisors went so far as to state that the endorsement was an “act of betrayal” that “came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver,” by this he is referencing Easter weekend.  To that statement, Richardson rebuttled, “that’s typical of many of the people around Sen. Clinton. They think they have a sense of entitlement to the presidency.”

Richardson’s endorsement of Obama has the potential to weaken Hillary’s campaign.  Not only is she loosing a superdelegate vote, but it can also reflect negatively on her since one of her close acquaintances is siding with her opponent. Furthermore, Richardson is the nation’s only Hispanic governor.  Hispanics have tended to support Hillary Clinton in her quest for the Democratic nomination. Therefore, Obama could be gaining a huge demographic that Hillary was depending on, for the most part.

I feel that it is also important to note that in an interview from February with The New York Times, Richardson discussed how superdelegates should vote. “It should reflect the vote of my state, it should represent the vote of my constituency.” However, Clinton won New Mexico and Richardson still chose to endorse Obama, which indicates to some that Richardson is simply being contradictive and “jumping on the bandwagon” in support of whoever can possibly further his own political agenda. 

Do you agree that Richardson’s endorsement of Obama will negatively impact Hillary’s chance at winning the presidential bid? Do you think that Richardson’s endorsement of Obama over Hillary will sway other superdelegates to follow his lead? How do you feel about Richardson’s endorsement at such a critical stage in the election? Do you think that Richardson is simply being a traitor?