Listen to actual chat audio on selected questions!

Rick: Welcome to T2A for December 26th. Today, Jim Malone, VOA National Affairs Correspondent, joins us for a look back at the past year and ahead to the next in U.S. Politics. 2008 promises to be an exciting year as Americans prepare to elect a new President in November 2008? Are U.S. voters ready to elect its first woman or African-American President? We're so glad to have Jim with us today so if you have questions, please join the chat!

-------------------------------

Wonwossen, Ethiopia (email): When did the Republican and Democratic presidential debates start and how has it affected the American election process since it started. And whom would Jim consider as the best contender that would be able to manipulate these debates for his/her gain in the upcoming election?

Answer audio

Jim: The debates have been going on in both parties for most of this past year. They have definitely had an impact. For example, for much of the year, Hillary Clinton had a growing lead on the Democratic side. Her advantage grew during the year in part because of her strong debate performances in which she projected an image of leadership, strength and knowledge of the issues. But Clinton gave contradictory answers to a question about giving illegal immigrants driver's license in November during a debate. From that point on, her lead in the polls has declined. So debates can help and hurt, if you see what I mean. On the Republican side, the emergence of former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has come about in large part because of his strong debate performances. The debates have given Huckabee the opportunity to demonstrate his likable personality and his sense of humor. In a sense, the Republican debates have been Huckabee's chance to be introduced to a national audience, and he has taken full advantage. So I think the debates have been very important this year.

-------------------------------

AC Rathinavel, India (email): Why is this election supposed to be very important in US history?

Answer audio

Jim: The 2008 presidential election is seen as pivotal because we are coming to the end of the two-term presidency of George W. Bush. Often after a president has served two terms, Americans are inclined to change parties and vote for a candidate from the other party. This happened in 1960 and in 2000, for example. Poll also indicate a majority of Americans are looking for change during the coming election year. That should help Democrats, but it will also depend on who the party nominees are. 2008 is also different because it is the first time since 1928 that neither a sitting president nor vice president is actually seeking the White House. So the race is wide open in both parties for the nominations.

-------------------------------

Dr. (Col) Wadia, India (email): Why has it taken USA 231 years to field a WOMAN as potential nominee for the highest executive post of the State?

Answer audio

Jim: The U.S. has long lagged behind other countries when it comes to women either seeking or winning the highest office in the land. We do have a woman Speaker of the House, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi of California, a Democrat. Now of course, Hillary Clinton is seeking to become the first woman president. We should remember that women in the United States only began voting in 1920, so the founding fathers of the U.S. Republic did not conceive of much of a political role for women. Hillary Clinton's candidacy has generated a lot of excitement among women, especially Democrats. But we should note that Senator Barack Obama, her chief rival for the Democratic Party nomination, also does well among women voters, especially in the early contest states of Iowa and New Hampshire.

-------------------------------

P.Madan Mohan,India (email): Many USA Presidents were elected for two terms. Please explain this US policy.

Answer audio

Jim: As to the phenomenon of two term presidents, it tends to be a habit, not policy. There was a time when there were no limits on the number of times a president could run for office. That changed after Democrat Franklin Roosevelt won four terms as president beginning in 1932, and Republicans led an effort to change the law to limit presidents to two terms. Since incumbent presidents generally have an advantage when running for re-election, they tend to win a second term. Recent examples of that are the current president, George W. Bush, and former President Bill Clinton. Those presidents who fail to win a second term usually are unable to overcome serious political or economic problems. Recent examples include Democrat Jimmy Carter and Republican George H. W. Bush. Carter could not overcome the Iranian hostage crisis and the oil crunch of the late 1970's. Bush was unable to convince Americans that he was doing enough to help the U.S. economy, even though his approval ratings were sky-high in the wake of the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

-------------------------------

Katrina: Do you think America is ready for a female or African-American as president?

Answer audio

Jim: It seems as though, reading public opinion polls, that American voters say they are ready to elect either a woman or an African American, or a Hispanic American to the White House. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Bill Richardson all get public ratings that suggest the public would accept them as president and that their racial or ethnic backgrounds do not pose a threat to their election. Of course, until a woman or an African American actually win, there will be questions in the minds of some as to whether the United States is truly ready to back up the poll results with voting results. Interestingly, Americans, again according to the polls, seem to have more reservations about Mitt Romney's Mormon religious background than Hillary Clinton's gender or Barack Obama's race. No doubt, there may be some people who might hesitate to vote for a woman or a black candidate, but the polls suggest they are but a fraction of those who would go to the polls.

-------------------------------

Anil Kumar Upadhyaya, India (email): In the 2008 US elections, there will be a big debate about the failed policies of US President Bush towards Iraq because lot of bloodshed in Iraq and withdrawal of troops by UK from Iraq seems that US allies are keeping their options open now towards Bush policy. Can you highlight this policy of the Bush administration towards Iraq and the impact it may have on the election.

Answer audio

Jim: The war in Iraq will no doubt have an impact on our election next year. How much of an impact is uncertain. Recent polls suggest that Americans are slightly more upbeat about what is happening there because of the improvement in security in many parts of the country. Previously, the polls have suggested Americans had long ago decided that the Iraq effort was not worth the cost, and that many people wanted to leave Iraq reasonably soon. One interesting thing about the polls for years now is that even though most Americans have a negative view of the war, they hesitate to support an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces. That is one reason why the Republicans and President Bush have been able to block efforts of the Democratic-led Congress to force a pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq. If Iraq fades as an election issue, look for economic concerns to take center stage, especially the rising cost of health care for Americans and concerns about declining housing values. But those issues could help the Democrats since the polls suggest voters have more confidence in the Democratic candidates handling those issues than the Republicans. Still, most Republicans would prefer that Iraq fade as an election issue. Many want some distance between them and the president's policy. A notable exception to this is Senator John McCain of Arizona, a proponent of the military surge strategy in Iraq who maintains winning the war there is the most important U.S. foreign policy goal.

-------------------------------

Tayyab Ajmal: It has been 5 years since US started its operations in Iraq and this long stay in Iraq by US forces have spurred the suicide bombings and civil wars. Do you think US should stay there in 2008 as well?

Answer audio

Jim: Most of the candidates in both parties do not advocate an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. The exceptions are New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, a Democrat, and another Democrat, Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio. On the Republican side, the only candidate who opposes the Iraq war and wants an immediate pullback of U.S. troops is Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. Most of the Democratic candidates, including Clinton and Obama and John Edwards, advocate a phased withdrawal but are somewhat vague on timelines. Most of the Republicans argue the president's current strategy in Iraq is working and offer little in the way of significant change from his policy. Given the recent failure of Democrats in Congress to force a withdrawal of U.S. troops anytime soon, it appears virtually certain U.S. troops will remain in Iraq in significant numbers during 2008, though there is the possibility of some modest withdrawals.

-------------------------------

Marcien, Cameroon: It is clear surveys are giving Hillary Clinton as the next candidate for the Democrats. But what if neither Senator Clinton nor Obama does not represent the party? Is it there a strong signal for the republicans as winners of the White House in 2008?

Answer audio

Jim: Actually, the latest polls from Iowa and New Hampshire suggest a very tight contest underway for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. In fact, some of the latest surveys show Obama slightly ahead of Clinton in both Iowa and New Hampshire, with John Edwards a close third in Iowa. What does this mean? It means we have a real race underway for the Democratic nomination and we must now let the voters speak about their preferences. For the past year, the polls and the experts have given Clinton the advantage, but the conventional wisdom preceding an election year if often wrong. Otherwise, we might be talking about President Howard Dean. Clinton is in a dogfight for the Democratic nomination. Early victories by Obama or Edwards in either Iowa or New Hampshire, or both, would seriously cut into the notion that Hillary Clinton is the inevitable Democratic nominee.

------------------------------

Rick: What's the difference between a caucus and a primary? What are the rules that govern the nominating process?

Answer audio

Jim: Here is how our election system works. The parties and the states control the early process. Each party holds a series of primaries and caucuses where party members eventually select their presidential nominees. In 2008, this process will begin earlier than ever. It starts for both parties in Iowa with the presidential caucuses. The caucuses will be held Thursday, January 3rd and involve Democrats and Republicans across Iowa gathering in various locations in the evening to first discuss and then vote on their preferences for president. The results of the party caucuses around the state will be tabulated at a central location, and the results will be made known to the public. Caucuses involve people leaving their homes in the evening to gather at a local school or fire hall to meet. This differs from a presidential primary where people go to polling places, as they would in any other election, and fill out ballots to vote for their favorite candidate for president. Candidates are awarded delegates depending on how well they do in the various caucuses and primaries, which run from January into April. The delegates then select the party nominees at the party nominating conventions later in the year. Democrats will hold their national convention in late August in Denver, Colorado. Republicans meet the first week in September in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota. Whichever party nominees win the most committed delegates win their respective party nominations, and will be the party nominees to face off in the general election next November.

-------------------------------

Rick: The Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire primary are swiftly approaching - how and why is this so important to the candidates and the future of their campaigns?

Answer audio

Jim: They are important because they are the first presidential contests and give candidates the opportunity to establish momentum to take them through the primary season toward the party conventions later in the year. Historically, candidates who do well in the process go on to usually win their party nominations. Iowa and New Hampshire have held the first contests for decades now. It is not something enshrined in our Constitution. It is something that has evolved in the modern political era. New Hampshire and its first in the nation primary has been influential since the early 1950's. Iowa's role in holding the first caucuses began to have an impact in the 1970's, and Jimmy Carter used a good showing in Iowa in 1976 to ride his way to the Democratic nomination. In 1992, Democrat Bill Clinton finished a strong second in the New Hampshire primary, which set him on a course to the White House. The early contests allow candidates from both parties to meet voters one on one and in small groups and often allow less well-known challengers an opportunity to make their case directly to the voters. They tend to somewhat even the playing field for contenders who do not have the money or name recognition to challenge on a national level.

-------------------------------

Rick: Democrats got control of congress in 2006 based largely on their promise to end the US involvement in Iraq - This hasn't happened and doesn't seem possible until the Bush Administration leaves office next January? Will Democrats be able to maintain control of congress after the 2008 elections?

Answer audio

Jim: In addition to electing a president every four years, our Constitution requires that Americans elect a new Congress every two years. So, in 2008, we will also be voting for members of Congress and the Senate. All 435 House seats are to be contested every two years, while about one-third of the Senate seats are up for election every two years since Senators are elected to six-year terms, while House members have to run every two years. You are correct; Democrats came into power early in 2007 in Congress with great hopes and plans. But their narrow majority in both the House and Senate has allowed Republicans and the president to block many of their proposals, especially those related to an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq. Polls show that while Americans largely disapprove of the president's job performance, they are just as likely to have a negative view of the Democrat's control of Congress. Some of that is Democrats upset that their party has done more to force a withdrawal from Iraq. The 2008 battle lines are already being drawn over Congress. Democrats will seek to enlarge their majorities to strengthen their hand when it comes to Iraq and other issues like health care. Republicans will hope to seize on the negative ratings for the Democratic led Congress, and will argue that voters should elect more Republicans to Congress as a check on a new Democratic president, if the Democratic nominee prevails in the election.

-------------------------------

Rick: We've heard about the dark horse coming from behind to either snatch the nomination of their party or perhaps even win an election? Do we see this as a possibility this time around? Who?

Answer audio

Jim: We have already seen one so-called dark horse emerge---former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee on the Republican side. A few months ago, Huckabee was little known outside his home state and was generating little interest among Republican voters or fundraisers. Now, thanks in part to his performance in the Republican debates and the lack of a consensus Republican frontrunner, Huckabee has emerged as a strong contender in the early voting states of Iowa and South Carolina. Part of Huckabee's success is that he is drawing support from religious conservatives looking for a Republican candidate who is consistent in his opposition to abortion and other so called social issues. It is possible, though perhaps not likely, that the Republican primary season will not necessarily produce a winner outright and that a nominee might have to be chosen at the Republican national nominating convention in September. That might open the door, ever so slightly, to the prospect of a true dark horse emerging at the convention. This has not happened in several decades and would unlikely this coming year. But the fact is, Republicans have yet to rally around a consensus nominee, something historically they tend to do at a relatively early stage in the process. The only potential Democratic dark horse was former Vice President Al Gore, but it seems he will not jump into the race at this late stage.

-------------------------------

Rick: Tayyab Ajmal, thanks so much for your question, if you could kindly send us your complete mailing address, we’d like to send you a small gift as a token of our appreciation for your participation in today’s chat. That wraps today’s T2A web chat, our thanks to Jim Malone, VOA National Affairs correspondent and to all of you for being a part of todays chat! We hope you all can join us on Wednesday, January 2nd at 1800 hours universal time, when we discuss U.S. Military Policy with VOA Pentagon Correspondent Al Pessin. Al will join us for a discussion of U.S. Military Policy and an update of U.S. Military action in Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s Wednesday, January 2nd at 1800 hours universal time on voanews.com, See you then and HAPPY NEW YEAR!

-------------------------------