Hillary is not going to be able beat Donald Trump by attacking his weaknesses. She will only be able to beat Donald Trump by converting his strengths into questions and concerns. This is harder to do than it sounds, but it's the necessary work that needs to be done if the Clinton campaign is serious about winning the presidential race.
Snuggling on the sofa with my eight-year daughter one evening, a commercial for the nightly news hinted of a sensational story about the 2016 political candidates. My daughter looked at me, with sadness in her eyes, "Mommy, I don't want Trump to be president." "Why is that, baby?" I ask. "Because half of my friends would disappear from school!"
She's the only candidate who will bring this great nation together.
By Laura Woods, Contributor After pulling off a sweeping ...
In an endless campaign, a milestone: actual voting! That's worth a celebration -- or at least a song...
This week, the new year kicked off with Donald Trump releasing his first TV ad, cramming in all the xenophobia, "pants on fire" mendacity and ugliness that have marked his campaign so far: calls for a temporary shutdown of Muslims entering the U.S., a wall to keep out Mexicans and a vow to "CUT THE HEAD OFF OF ISIS." While no one would accuse Trump of being a student of history, he's drawing on a deep American tradition of campaign fear mongering. It's the same playbook that gave us "welfare queens," Willie Horton, and, more recently, a decade-long disaster in Iraq. This isn't to say cynically pandering to people's lizard-brain fear center isn't effective -- it got Bush reelected in 2004 -- but it comes with a high cost. When we operate from fear, we push our reason into the background. And if we're going to make progress in this new year in solving our biggest problems, it's going to be by using our wisdom, not our fear.
Sometimes, figuratively speaking, all the money in the world can't change a political outcome. This very idea runs counter to all the dire warnings about money's corruptive influence on American politics, of course, but it makes it no less true -- at least in certain situations.
"Illegal" immigrants? How about an illegal presidential campaign? Marco Rubio's presidential campaign is breaking the law with impunity and in so doing, is throwing up the specter of political corruption and the appearance of political corruption.
There has been a great deal of speculation about Joe Biden's intentions as the leaves begin to turn. Will he run for the White House a third time or will he ride out on a high note, perhaps to be the next Secretary of State should a Democrat win in 2016?
As pundits and partisans alike are tallying the winners and losers of this year's contests, they should not forget to consider that the real winners were the campaign media consultants and the owners of local television stations, both of whom pocketed hundreds of millions of dollars in advertising revenues.
As the Koch brothers and their ultra-wealthy cronies think they've figured out, a little chicken manure goes a long way when it comes to misleading voters into supporting the GOP.
Those of us in higher education often say that liberal learning includes the preparation for citizenship. It's great to see an example of that preparation grounded in the collaborative work of faculty and students.
Now is our chance to argue for government -- one that is well-funded and run by people who believe in the critical role it can and must play. Look around, do you see a corporation stepping in to solve the Ebola crisis?
The Supreme Court didn't directly tell me I'm not allowed to contribute to political candidates. Instead, they've just made it fairly meaningless for me to bother.
Sadly, too many people seem to think campaign ads are news. They fail to recognize the rhetoric, or in some cases the outright lies. In this case, it is easy to spot the slanted and unsubstantiated ideological claim.
Is the media's excessive interest in personal scandal really at the root of the superficiality and viciousness of today's politics? I'm not convinced. Yes, tabloid-style coverage is a problem, but I see much bigger factors at play