Last Wednesday's Democratic Party presidential debate, featuring Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, has been criticized for focusing on trivial issues rather than more substantive policy discussions. ABC News, who hosted the debate, has come under fire for spending 45 minutes of the debate on trivial matters ranging from Obama's patriotism and questions about his wearing a flag pin on his lapel to Clinton's Bosnia "sniper fire" story. Some of the questions posed to the candidates included:

"CHARLES GIBSON: You got talking in California about small-town Pennsylvanians who have had tough economic times in recent years, and you said they get bitter, and they cling to guns or they cling to their religion or they cling to antipathy toward people who are not like them. Now, you've said you misspoke; you said you mangled what it was you wanted to say. But we've talked to a lot of voters. Do you understand that some people in this state find that patronizing and think that you said actually what you meant?

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, let me pick up on this. When these comments from Senator Obama broke on Friday, Senator McCain's campaign immediately said that it was going to be a killer issue in November.

CHARLES GIBSON: Senator Obama, since you last debated, you made a significant speech in this building on the subject of race and your former pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

Senator, let me follow up, and let me add to that. You have said that he would not have been my pastor, and you said that you have to speak out against those kinds of remarks, and implicitly by getting up and moving, and I presume you mean out of the church. Do you honestly believe that 8,000 people should have gotten up and walked out of that church?

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator, two questions. Number one, do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?

Senator Clinton, we also did a poll today, and there are also questions about you raised in this poll. About six in ten voters that we talked to don't believe you're honest and trustworthy. And we also asked a lot of Pennsylvania voters for questions they had. A lot of them raised this honesty issue and your comments about being under sniper fire in Bosnia.

And you yourself have said she hasn't been fully truthful about what she would do as president. Do you believe that Senator Clinton has been fully truthful about her past?

CHARLES GIBSON: It's a question raised by a voter in Latrobe, Pennsylvania, a woman by the name of Nash McCabe. Take a look.

NASH McCABE: Senator Obama, I have a question, and I want to know if you believe in the American flag. I am not questioning your patriotism, but all our servicemen, policemen and EMS wear the flag. I want to know why you don't.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: A follow-up on this issue, the general theme of patriotism in your relationships. A gentleman named William Ayers, he was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol and other buildings. He's never apologized for that. And in fact, on 9/11 he was quoted in the New York Times saying, "I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough." An early organizing meeting for your state senate campaign was held at his house, and your campaign has said you are friendly. Can you explain that relationship for the voters and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem?"

Unfortunately, while this was one of the most watched debates of the campaign, it focused on the most trivial issues of all the debates. However, this is not particularly abnormal for coverage of presidential campaigns--the media tends focus on such issues rather than substantive policy distinctions.

The systemic nature of this kind of coverage in the media was explored by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) who said that even when the debate turned to more "substantive" questions it reflected a rightwing spin:

"But even when the questions turned to issues of actual substance, things hardly improved. It was not until a full three quarters of an hour into the debate that the candidates were asked the question about what Stephanopoulos acknowledged was "the No. 1 issue on Americans' minds"-- the economy."

A focus on frivolous details in political campaigns has also been seen here in West Michigan, with the Election Watch 2004 and 2006 projects documenting numerous examples of such coverage.

Today, the Associated Press published an article titled "McCain More Conservative Than His Image" that looks at how Republican Party presidential candidate John McCain is considerably more "conservative" than his public image. For years, McCain has been deemed a "maverick" by the media. McCain is often seen as a Senator who antagonizes both Republicans and Democrats, despite the fact that his actual voting record is generally supportive of the right and the Republican Party. The article points out that McCain stands with the Republicans on:

* Iraq. McCain criticized the earlier handling of the war but has been a crucial ally in President Bush's effort to increase and maintain U.S. forces in Iraq.

* Abortion. McCain promises to appoint judges who, in the mold of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, are likely to limit the reach of the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion. McCain's record is not spotless on abortion: He said once, in 1999, that Roe v. Wade should not be overturned. But that amounted to a blip in an otherwise unbroken record of opposing abortion rights for women.

"I am pro-life and an advocate for the rights of man everywhere in the world," McCain told the Conservative Political Action Conference in February. "Because to be denied liberty is an offense to nature and nature's Creator."

* Gay rights. McCain opposes gay marriage. True, he does not support a federal ban on gay marriage on grounds the issue traditionally has been decided by states. But McCain worked to ban gay marriage in Arizona. He also supports the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, and he opposed legislation to protect gay people from job discrimination or hate crimes.

"I'm proud to have led an effort in my home state to change our state constitution and to protect the sanctity of marriage as between a man and woman," he told CNN in March. "I will continue to advocate for those fundamental principals of our party and our faith."

* Gun control. McCain voted against a ban on assault-style weapons and for shielding gun-makers and dealers from civil suits. He did vote in favor of requiring background checks at gun shows, but in general he sides with the National Rifle Association in favor of gun rights.

While the Associated Press article has its problems--for example its reliance on polls to try to predict how voters might vote in November--it is generally a good example of a journalist examining a candidate's record rather than focusing on more trivial details. Unfortunately, while most major party candidates have lengthy voting records, their records are rarely the focus of the media's reporting.

The Center for Public Integrity's "Buying of the President 2008" project has just posted a story with archival video footage of founder and former CEO of Wal-Mart, Sam Walton talking with Hillary Clinton. Wal-Mart has become the largest global employer in recent years and has been the subject of a great deal of public anger over its labor practices and destroying local economies. The mainstream news coverage of Clinton as a presidential candidate has mostly ignored her relationship to Wal-Mart:

"Throughout the 2008 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton has studiously avoided discussing her five-and-a-half-year tenure as a director of Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer.

Clinton, who served on the Wal-Mart board from November 1986 to May 1992, while she was First Lady of Arkansas, makes no mention of the experience in speeches, nor is it listed in her official biography or referenced anywhere on her campaign's website. Indeed, as The New York Times put it last year, her stint as a director of Wal-Mart "remains a little known chapter in her closely scrutinized career."

But a mammoth archive of Wal-Mart video footage that has gone all but unnoticed in the 2008 presidential campaign may shed new light into Clinton's relationship with the company. In this segment from 1991, for example, made public here for the first time by the Center for Public Integrity, Sam Walton, the founder of Wal-Mart, introduces Clinton at the grand re-opening of the company's original store in Rogers, Arkansas. "Without any question," he says, "You've added more to our board than any person we've ever had on that board."

In the video, Clinton is effusive in her praise of the company that she has now all but disowned. (In 2005 her Senate re-election campaign went so far as to return a $5,000 contribution from Wal-Mart's political action committee, citing "serious differences with current company practices.")

"I'm so proud of this company, and everything it represents," Clinton says in the video clip. "Anytime I travel and I tell people I'm from Arkansas . . . Wal-Mart's on top of the list, and everybody wants me to tell them about Wal-Mart and Sam Walton and Helen Walton and all of the Wal-Mart associates. It makes me feel real good about what we're able to do and what we can show and the sort of leadership we're given."

For now, the video archive--maintained by a production company that for more than two decades recorded many shareholder meetings and other Wal-Mart events--is the clearest window into Clinton's relationship with the company. According to the Associated Press, Wal-Mart has refused to release minutes of its board meetings during the period she was a paid director of the company."

Here's one of the videos:

The Washington, DC-based organization The Sentencing Project recently published an 11-page guide on where the leading presidential candidates stand on a range of key criminal justice issues, including sentencing policy, reentry, the death penalty, and felony voter disenfranchisement. The Sentencing Project is a non-partisan organization and does not endorse candidates. However, it is important to point out that the only candidate positions in the guide are those of Senators Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Barack Obama. Unfortunately, third party candidate positions are not included.

On the issue of mandatory minimum sentences, Clinton believes "Mandatory minimum sentences for certain violent crimes are appropriate, but have been applied too broadly and in ways that are unfair to minority offenders." Obama has "proposed abolishing mandatory minimum sentences; promises to review all minimum sentences and eliminate those that are too harsh." Senator McCain "supports mandatory sentences for selling illegal drugs."

With regard to the "three-strikes-and-you're-out" law, Clinton supports "three-strikes" as necessary to incapacitate violent offenders. Senator Obama has not explicitly addressed "three-strikes," but generally opposes harsh mandatory sentences, and Senator McCain did not respond to this question.

In regards to the "War on Drugs," Senator Clinton "Supports drug courts for low-level offenders." She also believes focus should be on treatment. Senator Obama "Supports drug courts for first time, non-violent offenders and believes focus should be on prevention and unemployment." Senator McCain "Supports mandatory sentences for drug dealers, but believes that too many first-time drug offenders--not dealers--are in prison."

On the issue of crack/powder cocaine disparities in sentencing, Hillary Clinton has "Previously supported decreasing disparity to 10-to-1, but is now a cosponsor of an equalization bill in the Senate. She also is opposed to guideline changes being applied retroactively." Barack Obama "Supports eliminating disparity and applying guideline changes retroactively." Obama is a co-sponsor of the Senate equalization bill. Senator McCain did not respond to this question.

When it comes to the death penalty Senator Clinton "Supports the death penalty, but advocates for competent defense counsel and DNA testing. She also lobbied for law expanding list of crimes subject to death penalty." Senator Obama was "Initially opposed to the death penalty during his Senate race, but now supports it for heinous crimes. He also led support for reforms to avoid wrongful convictions." Senator McCain simply responded by saying he "Supports the death penalty."

On the issue of disproportionate minority representation in the criminal justice system, Clinton "Intends to have the Civil Rights Division in the Department of Justice to protect liberties and act on reports of abuse in criminal justice system. She also supports legislation on racial profiling." Obama "Believes disproportionality is related to poverty and unemployment among minorities." He promoted fair defense by passing an Illinois bill requiring videotaping of interrogations and confessions in capital cases. Senator McCain "Opposed the Racial Justice Act, which proposed enabling prisoners to demonstrate racial discrimination using sentencing statistics in death sentence appeals."

In regards to ex-offender re-entry into communities, Clinton,"Calls for investing in re-entry partnership grants in her Youth Opportunity Agenda. She co-sponsored the Second Chance Act to provide counseling and job opportunities for ex-offenders. Clinton also supports programs that teach non-violent offenders skills while they are in prison." Senator Obama "Co-sponsored the Second Chance Act to provide counseling and job opportunities for ex-offenders. He promises to create a prison-to work incentive program to improve ex-offender employment and job retention rates." Senator McCain "Supports programs that provide job-related skills and job placement assistance when prisoners are released."

On the issue of felony disenfranchisement, Senator Clinton supports re-enfranchisement. She was the lead sponsor of the Count Every Vote Act to restore voting rights of ex-felons after they have repaid debt to society. Senator Obama also supports re-enfranchisement and was a co-sponsored the Count Every Vote Act. Senator McCain did not respond to this issue.

Lastly, on the issue of parole only Senator McCain responded. He supports "truth in sentencing" for violent offenders so that they serve full sentences with no chance of parole.

The Sentencing Project also provides several pages of comments and quotes from each of the three major party candidates on these issues.

As the sixth year of the United States' occupation of Iraq begins and Congress prepares to hear again from General Petraeus on the status of the US campaign in Iraq, it is important to recognize how members of Congress are financially tied to the defense industry. A new report by the Center for Responsive Politics called "Strategic Assets" demonstrates that many members of Congress financially gain when military budgets grow:

"According to the most recent reports of their personal finances, 151 current members of Congress had between $78.7 million and $195.5 million invested in companies that received defense contracts of at least $5 million in 2006. In all, these companies received more than $275.6 billion from the government in 2006, or $755 million per day, according to FedSpending.org, a website of the budget watchdog group OMB Watch.

The minimum value of Congress members' personal investments in these contractors increased 5 percent from 2004 to 2006, but because lawmakers are only required to report their assets in broad ranges, the value of these investments could have risen as much as 160 percent--or even dropped 51 percent. It is also unclear how many members still hold these investments, since reports for 2007 are not due until May 15, 2008. In 2004, the first full year after the Iraq war began, Republican and Democratic lawmakers--both hawks and doves--had between $74.9 million and $161.3 million invested in companies under contract with the Department of Defense.

As the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have expanded and transformed, so, too, has the need for goods and services that extend beyond helicopters, armored vehicles and guns. Giant corporations outside of the defense sector, such as Pepsico, IBM, Microsoft and Johnson & Johnson, have received defense contracts and are all popular investments for both members of Congress and the general public. So common are these companies, both as personal investments and as defense contractors, it would appear difficult to build a diverse blue-chip stock portfolio without at least some of them.

Lawmakers' investments in these contractors yielded them between $15.8 million and $62 million in income from 2004 through 2006, through dividends, capital gains, royalties and interest, the Center found. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), who are two of Congress's wealthiest members, were among the lawmakers who earned the most income from these contractors between 2004 and 2006, with Sensenbrenner making at least $3.2 million and Kerry reaping at least $2.6 million."

Two additional findings in this report show that members of Congress that sit on the Senate Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees also have significant investments in the weapons industry:

"In 2006, members of these two committees had between $32 million and $44 million invested in companies with DOD contracts. Foreign Relations member Kerry's investments accounted for most of it--between $28.9 million and $38.2 million. Members of the two committees held between $3 million and $5.1 million in defense-only companies.

Chairs of other defense-related committees are similarly invested. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, had at least $51,000 invested in these companies in 2006. Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.), who heads the House Foreign Affairs Committee, had at least $30,000, including between $1,001 and $15,000 invested in defense company Raytheon, which has one of its major facilities right outside of Berman's district. According to Berman's office, that holding is in a trust the congressman inherited from his parents."

Lastly, despite how members of Congress might vote on the issue of Iraq and the Defense budget in general, Democrats and Republicans are both heavily invested in the arms industry:

"While Democrats are more likely to advocate for ending the Iraq war sooner than Republicans, as a group they have more of their own money invested in America's military efforts. In 2006 Democrats had at least $3.7 million invested in the defense sector alone, compared to Republicans' $577,500. More Republicans, however, held stock in defense companies in 2006--28 of them, compared to 19 Democrats.

According to a spokesman for one of these investors, Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who held at least $15,000 in Lockheed Martin stock in 2006, it's "insulting" to make a connection between personal investments and a lawmaker's job. "Congressman Blunt does not consider his personal finances when voting for legislation, especially on issues as weighty as sending our troops into harm's way," Blunt spokesman Nick Simpson said. (Update: After the posting of this story, Simpson added that the stock is an investment held by Blunt's wife, who received it from her mother as a gift.)

Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.), who has spoken out against the administration's policy in Iraq and belongs to the Out of Iraq Congressional Caucus, had at least $50,000 invested in Boeing in 2006. Farr's office did not respond to Capital Eye's inquiries about this investment and whether he still holds the stock."

When it comes to foreign policy, Iraq has dominated the headlines in the 2008 presidential election, despite the fact that in many cases, the major party candidates do not offer a significant departure from existing policy. While Republican Senator John McCain supports an indefinite occupation of Iraq and a more aggressive policy, the Democratic Party candidates--Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama--have not offered a policy that is much different. There policy is one of indefinite occupation by a smaller force. This has led some--including Noam Chomsky--to state that they do not believe Iraq will be a significant issue in the campaign.

However, if Iraq is not receiving an appropriate amount of attention, US policy towards Iran is receiving less attention. In an article for Foreign Policy in Focus, Frankie Sturm recently argued that Iran is a critical issue for US foreign policy both in terms of possible military action with Iran and policy in the Middle East. Strum's article is reprinted below:

Although Iraq and the economy tend to dominate the headlines, Iran is never far from the news cycle – or from the speeches of the leading U.S. presidential candidates. In a recent trip to the Middle East, John McCain reiterated his concern about “Iranian influence and assistance to Hezbollah as well as Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons.” Iran also received the attention of President Bush when he insisted last month that Iran is developing nuclear weapons in order to “destroy people.” Implausible and unsubstantiated as this claim might be, it represents a popular thread of argument in the Iran debate.

But Iran figures in other ways in the 2008 presidential election. It is not only a matter of war and peace. The candidates’ approach to Iran reveals what U.S. engagement with the Middle East might look like in the years to come.

Similarity of Approach

Although there are significant differences between the presidential contenders, they all share certain concerns and assumptions about Iran. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain have all openly stated that Iran cannot, under any circumstances, be permitted to obtain nuclear weapons. To that end, each candidate maintains that the military option, though not preferred, remains “on the table.”

This unity is the result of a fundamental mistrust the candidates share toward the Iranian regime. For Obama, Iran is a “radical theocracy” that sponsors terrorism and “regional aggression.” According to John McCain’s website, Iran is a “dictatorship” that has “aided and abetted the violence in Iraq” and trained “the most violent Shia militias.” Hillary Clinton is largely in agreement with these statements, arguing that “Iran poses a long-term strategic challenge to the United States, our NATO allies, and Israel.” Consequently, Iran is not to be trusted with nuclear weapons.

Beyond this shared stance on Iran’s nuclear program, the three candidates also succumb to a certain sin of omission. None of them has acknowledged Iran’s legitimate security interests. While foreign policy experts across the ideological spectrum agree that Iran is guilty of bad behavior, many have also pointed out that Iran faces serious national security threats of its own. The United States, which has threatened to overthrow Iran’s government, has 160,000 troops in neighboring Iraq and is part of a 40,000-troop NATO force in neighboring Afghanistan. Iran shares a border with American ally Turkey, and the U.S. Navy is present in force in the Persian Gulf. In short, Iran is boxed in by a massively stronger power that has repeatedly threatened it. Furthermore, Iran also feels threatened by Israeli nuclear weapons, for which it has no effective defense.

By not publicly recognizing these issues, Obama, Clinton, and McCain fail to provide a solid explanation for Iranian behavior. How does one distinguish deterrence or self-defense from “Islamofascism” or a bid for regional hegemony? Since sponsorship of terrorism or the pursuit of nuclear weapons could be used for either hegemony or deterrence, Iran’s motivations are notoriously difficult to read. Nevertheless, a president must make those tough calls. The use or non-use of military force will rely on how the president understands Iran’s motives and actions. The candidates have failed to publicly demonstrate such an understanding.

Important Differences

In spite of these similarities, the differences between Obama, Clinton, and McCain can help us determine how willing and able each candidate will be to pursue a diplomatic course before opting for military action. Of the three, Obama is the most committed to a negotiated settlement with Iran. He has unequivocally stated that he would engage the Iranian regime “without preconditions,” offering a pledge not to invade and possible membership for Iran in the World Trade Organization. Since Iran will not stop enriching uranium as a prerequisite to talks, this is the only way to engage Iran on the nuclear issue. Obama also stands out because he, unlike Clinton and McCain, is more circumspect on whether he believes Iran actually intends to build nuclear weapons.

For example, in the latter half of 2007 each candidate published an essay on foreign policy in Foreign Affairs magazine. While McCain and Clinton openly charge that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, Obama does not. He recognizes that Iran is enriching uranium and he is clear about his opposition to an Iranian bomb, but in very careful language he avoids saying that Iran wants nuclear weapons. On his website, Obama claims that Iran “has sought” nuclear weapons – notice the past tense – but doesn’t say that Iran is currently doing so.

Obama’s discretion on the nuclear weapons issue may indicate that he recognizes more nuance in Iran’s motivation and actions than he lets on. While he, like Clinton and McCain, has not publicly acknowledged the security threats facing Iran, at least one of his advisors has. Joe Cirincione, an Obama foreign policy advisor with expertise in nuclear weapons policy and national security, has articulated an understanding of the threat environment facing Iran and how nuclear weapons could undermine Iranian security. Although ignored by the mainstream media, this line of argument is of monumental importance.

With 70 million people, vast oil wealth, and a mountainous topography, Iran does not face any serious military threat from countries in the region (unless they are supported by the U.S. military). However, other countries in the region could develop nuclear weapons if Iran obtains them first. Since no amount of conventional strength could protect Iran from a neighboring nuclear bomb, the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran could actually decrease Iran’s security. A president who does not understand the relationship between Iran’s security challenges and its nuclear program will have a difficult time engaging the Iranian regime in productive negotiations. By keeping advisors like Cirincione on hand and not assuming that Iran ultimately desires nuclear weapons, Obama shows that he might have that understanding after all, public rhetoric notwithstanding.

For all of Hillary Clinton’s criticism of Obama regarding his supposed naïveté in foreign affairs, she has a remarkably similar position. In 2007 she said that “I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions, because we don’t really understand how Iran works.” She also believes that Iran might respond to a “carefully calibrated package of incentives.” In a speech made from the Senate floor in February 2007, Clinton declared that the president cannot take military action against Iran without congressional authorization. However, several months later she voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment that designated the Revolutionary Guard of Iran as a terrorist organization. Clinton immediately found herself under fire from Senate colleagues Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, and Barack Obama, as well as others who worried that the amendment would allow the White House to claim authority to attack Iran.

Such episodes, in addition to her authorization of the Iraq war, show that Hillary Clinton has a history of acting tough or making war without a consideration of the consequences. Particularly troubling about the juxtaposition of this approach with her willingness to pursue diplomatic means is that the difference between Clinton the dove and Clinton the hawk seems to be largely contingent on the latest opinion polls. When it was politically expedient for her to support the Iraq war and Kyl-Lieberman, she did so. When the war in Iraq became unpopular, she became an opponent of the war. Similarly, when the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) concluded that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003, she moderated her Iran rhetoric, largely by ceasing to talk about the country.

One of Clinton’s closest foreign policy advisors, Richard Holbrooke, has shown a similar tendency. An advocate of regime change in Iraq, Holbrooke has also compared Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Adolf Hitler, claiming that Iran is “an enormous threat to the United States, the stability in the region, and to the state of Israel.” Then, after the NIE, Holbrooke wrote in the Huffington Post that he had consistently opposed military action against Iran, even before the NIE. Still, in 2008 he has continued to argue that all options must remain “on the table.” Prudence may dictate that there is a time for diplomacy and a time for military action, but public opinion is not always the best way to decide between the two. In fact, it may not be a guide at all considering how much the presidential bully pulpit influences public opinion in matters of foreign policy. Unfortunately, Clinton’s past on Iran leaves it impossible to know when military action would take a back seat to diplomacy and vice versa.

The differences between Obama and Clinton are dwarfed by the gap between the Democratic and Republican positions on Iran. John McCain proposes isolation only, with no call for providing Iran incentives to change its behavior. If sanctions and isolation do not work, he is willing to act militarily. With the price of oil hovering around $100 a barrel, the United States bogged down in Iraq, and China and Russia reluctant to punish Iran for uranium enrichment, Iran will feel confident that it can weather whatever storm of sanctions the United States might put together. In this scenario, if he stays true to his word, the military option will be the only choice John McCain has left.

October Surprise?

Iran will continue to be an important foreign policy theme in the 2008 election. Nevertheless, it is likely to be overshadowed by the economy and Iraq. The U.S. public is accustomed to hearing bad things about Iran, so unless something out of the ordinary occurs – such as a military strike authorized by the Bush administration – it is hard to imagine Iran trumping voters’ concerns over Iraq and possible recession.

In the event that an Iranian October surprise does take place, it is difficult to predict how it would affect the election. If there is overt aggression on Iran’s part, the tough-talking John McCain will almost certainly benefit. However, an unprovoked attack on Iran might discredit Republican militarism, thereby giving the Democratic candidate a boost. What remains certain, though, is that Iran awaits the next American president. And while the identity of that person is not yet clear, the policy choices Americans will have to choose from are.

Frankie Sturm, a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus (www.fpif.org), is a free-lance writer based on Washington, DC. His pieces on American politics and foreign affairs have appeared in the Peoria Journal Star, the Topeka Capital-Journal, and MinutemanMedia.org.

In a 21-page opinion, federal judge Nancy G. Edmunds ruled that a portion of Michigan's primary election law is unconstitutional. Judge Edmunds agreed with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan and asserted that the state of Michigan cannot release voter party preference lists only to the Democratic and Republican Parties without violating the rights of minor parties, journalists, researchers, and the public. The ruling removed the portion of the law that made it a misdemeanor--punishable by up to 93-days in jail and a $1,000 fine--to provide the information to entities other than the two major parties.

However, while the judge in the case, the ACLU, and the State Elections Director have said that nothing in the ruling should impact the 2008 presidential campaign, Democratic Party chairman Mark Brewer said that without the voter preference information they would be unable to ensure that voters in a second primary or caucus had not also voted in the Republican Party primary in January.

Today, a federal judge is hearing oral arguments in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan on behalf of the Green Party of Michigan, the Libertarian Party of Michigan, the Reform Party of Michigan, the Metro Times newspaper, and the political consulting firm Winning Strategies. The parties, consulting firm, and newspaper are challenging the August 2007 primary law that requires Michigan's Secretary of State to provide party preference declarations only to the Democratic and Republican Parties. Because Michigan law does not require voters to register by party, party declaration information is considered "valuable" to political parties, candidates, the media, and researchers. However, under the current law, anyone other than the two major parties who "uses" the information--dubbed "secret" in the law--could be punished by a 93-day, $1,000 misdemeanor.

The ACLU says that the law unfairly gives preference to the two major parties while making it a crime for others to use or acquire the information. In their legal complaint, the ACLU alleges that the law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as the First Amendment by preventing the media from commenting and reporting on matters of public interest relating to voter party preference information.

Last month, an injunction was granted prohibiting the Secretary of State from distributing the party preference declarations solely to the two major parties.

While much of the media focuses on the debate within the Democratic Party over whether or not Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama will get the presidential nomination, so-called "third party" candidates for the presidency are almost entirely excluded from any discussion of the 2008 election. Ralph Nader, who is running as an independent candidate, is the only exception, although Nader has been covered primarily as a potential "spoiler" who might "take" votes from the Democratic Party candidates.

While Nader's candidacy has received most of the attention, there are several other candidates running for president. Among those who have already received their parties' nominations are Brian Moore of the Socialist Party of the United States of America, Roger Calero with the Socialist Workers Party, and Gene Amondson of the Prohibition Party (his vice presidential candidate, Leroy Pletten is from Michigan). Additionally, the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, and the Constitution Party have yet to nominate candidates but have several running for their party's nomination.

Third parties in the United State have of course faced substantial obstacles in recent years, including an almost complete neglect in the media, exclusion from presidential debates, and substantial ballot access requirements.

As soon as it is announced who will be on the ballot in Michigan, Media Mouse will explore the platforms of the third party candidates in more detail as part of future Election Watch articles, as we can be sure that the corporate media outlets--and even many progressive news websites--in Michigan will not.

USA Today reported on March 23 that Republican presidential candidate John McCain has former lobbyists from the telecommunications industry raising money for him. "Of the 66 current or former lobbyists working for the Arizona senator or raising money for his presidential campaign, 23 have lobbied for telecommunications companies in the past decade, Senate lobbying disclosures show."

The article goes on to say:

"McCain has netted about $765,000 in political donations from those telecom lobbyists, their spouses, colleagues at their firms and their telecom clients during the past decade, a USA TODAY analysis of campaign-finance records shows.

McCain is a senior member of the Senate Commerce Committee, which oversees the telecom industry and the Federal Communications Commission. He has repeatedly pushed industry-backed legislation since 2000, particularly during a second stint as committee chairman from 2003 through 2005. His efforts to eliminate taxes and regulations on telecommunications services won him praise from industry executives.

People who lobbied for telecom companies on those issues include McCain's campaign manager, his deputy manager, his finance chief, his top unpaid political adviser and his Senate chief of staff. Telecom companies have paid the lobbying firms that employed those top five McCain advisers more than $4.4 million since 1999, lobbying records show."

McCain was one of 68 senators who voted to give the major phone companies immunity for their role in allowing the US government to engage in its warrantless wiretapping program. Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were both absent from this vote, but it is clear from the data provided by the Center for Responsive Politics that "those who favor immunity have received more money from telecom than those who don't." The data also shows that big telecom companies like Verizon and AT&T have contributed almost equally to both the Democratic and Republican Parties.