Looking for something new?

From National Public Radio analyst Peter Overby, "Numbers show differences in Clinton, Obama Donors." (April 16, 2007). "Campaign finance reports filed by the 2008 presidential candidates reveal new details about their chances — and their supporters.
Among Democrats, Sen. Hillary Clinton leads in the polls, even as Sen. Barack Obama closes in on her. And in the battle for campaign cash, Obama is now ahead by some important measures.
In terms of cash available for the primary campaign, Clinton has about $24 million, while Obama has about $19 million. That's nearly twice as much as the closest candidate, former Sen. John Edwards. But analysts say there are also nuances that could make a difference down the line. Most notably, the number of donors: 104,000 for Obama, and 60,000 for Clinton."

With President Bush's approval ratings continually low, American dismay with a President unresponsive to popular opinion, and feelings that it is time for a change, is a young, energetic, and charming Barack Obama just what the country needs? Many people have associated Obama with a sort of Kennedy like flare and his relative inexperience in what has become to be known as a dirty political game make him an attractive candidate. But maybe Hiliary has the resources and name to pull this off. More importantly, doesn't it seem dangerous for democracy to have the past 4 presidents be from 2 families (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, assuming Hiliary wins)?

and furthermore, !

after sleeping on it, the only actor that i can think of stepping into the role of "Protector of Democracy" relative to its sanctity/viability of democracy is watchdog organizations and thinktanks. these organizations have taken it upon themselves to police the honesty and overall accuracy of everything from media reports to proposed legislation. this makes me wonder if their efforts are a new sort of "external check" on our political system. also, i can't decide if their actions are vigilantism or responsible. furthermore, even if they are a legit way to keep the system honest, how effective can they be? i mean, when was the last time you read a report of a thinktank's findings?! "oh yeah, i was perusing the latest release from the cato institute and..." Steph, this lack of attention seems to add credence to the "blind acceptance" side of the dichotomy you introduced - even if there is easy access to objective sources, people don't take the time to read them. now i'm all bothered and angsty - i should sign off now.

so now what?!

our discussion, both in this forum and throughout class, is building within me a strong distaste for and distrust of the media (and politicians, too - lying bastards...). when i consider the past and future of democracy in light of all of the theories of manipulation, monopoly, and political predation that we've learned this semester, i see a slow, constant stroll down the garden path to hell. i feel as though, in spite of ourselves, the citizens/politicians of the united states are slowly succumbing to that self-interest that i mentioned earlier, gradually finding ways to circumvent all those Madisonian safe-guards against just such a travesty. as my beloved checks and balances erode in front of me, i cannot help but ask myself -and you too- is there (no) hope for the future of democracy? -jd

[note: i am admitedly a bit too idealistic in my views of democratic theory and american revolutionary war-era politics so, although there may be a touch of melodrama in this post's delivery, the sentiment is genuine]