The first presidential campaign since 1952 without an incumbent president or vice president is heating up long before any ballots will be cast. It seems that the nation is eager to look forward and envision a country sans the George W. Bush administration.
On top of enthusiastic predictions about candidates (from Obama to McCain to Biden to Romney to Brownback, names seem to be popping about like Powerballs in a lottery machine), states are now jockeying for top spots in the 2008 primary elections. California, New Jersey, Arkansas and Delaware are just a few of the states that have moved their primaries up to Feb. 5. As Barack Obama said in an interview with The New York Times, "It's becoming a brush fire out there."
But all of this moving and shifting might be a good thing for the country. If a large number of states hold primaries on the same day in February, more voters will have greater influence on the election's outcome.
Candidates thrown off by this shift in schedule and unable to adapt will be at a disadvantage, no matter how much money is in their coffers. Conversely, candidates without some financial cushion and flexibility may be unable to pace themselves. Hopefully, the most enterprising and creative candidates will be the ones who come out on top, which is the way the process should work.
Speaking of candidates who are looking and thinking forward, Obama is certainly on the ball when it comes to raising money. The announcement yesterday from the senator's campaign that his efforts during the first three months of 2007 had yielded $25 million, nearly matching Hillary Clinton, is just the latest example of this year's financial focus and the advantage that an energetic, innovative campaign team may provide.
As reported in The Washington Post, Obama raked in money from 100,000 donors, with $6.9 million raised online, while Clinton's campaign reported donations from only 50,000 donors, with just $4.2 million from online.
That notwithstanding, Clinton's $26 million completely blows out of the water the previous record ($8.9 million, set by Al Gore in 2000) for first-quarter fundraising in prior elections-just to put things into perspective.
The detrimental effects of all this fundraising are obvious: the election has the potential to turn into a money-raising competition instead of a race to determine the best possible chief executive. On the other hand, if candidates pour their money into more advertising, public appearances and informational material, it is possible that a greater number of citizens will become more interested, and even more invested, in the election.
In any case, we hope that the current excitement about candidates will prove sustainable through the next year and a half. A successful election must include broad voter participation. The more the media covers the race, the more voters will be motivated to become part of the election process. As long as the country does not feel overdosed on publicity, then everyone will win with a more active campaign.
