Election 2008: Candidate-centered vs Party centric campaigns

In the Cohen et al article, it states that in 2008 election political parties have had less control over the invisible primary process than in previous years. I agree, the 2008 election had was more candidate-centered, and less driven by the candidates party. We see this more from the Republicans than we do from the Democrats, who exhibited more party-like behavior than their counterparts.
Candidate-centered campaigns fail to hear groups within the party. We can first look at the Republican candidates as evidence for a candidate-centered campaign because each candidate had a mark against them that stirred up trouble in their parties. The article states that, in candidate-centered politics, candidates gain endorsements and donations by their political strength. Supporters of candidates consider whether a candidate will advance issues they care about or not, if they do not talk about policies or issues they care about, they lose support or never back them in the first place. This is what happened to the Republican candidates. Rudy Giuliani was unacceptable to social conservative because of his view on abortion, gun control and gay rights. John McCain went against his party oftentimes and did not support the GOP agenda consistently in the Senate. Therefore, he was distrusted by other leading Republicans, and his support for the GOP was divided and sketchy. Mitt Romney was not a good candidate because he did not concern his campaign with issues that social conservatives cared about soon enough. Mike Huckabee raised taxes, which caused a strike against economic conservatives. Fred Thompson was widely accepted in the Republican party, but did not exert enough energy in campaigning. This eventually ruined his support. The Republican party did not have a candidate that could bridge party divisions and campaign hard for the nomination. Each candidate had their own issues and image to portray and did not align themselves enough to represent the party they were campaigning for, and their party had a difficult time coming to a decision as to which candidate was the best to support. They were definitely not agents of their parties.
The Democrats exhibited more party-like behavior but also had elements of a candidate-centered style as well. This was due to the fact that the main frontrunners of the Democratic party were individuals never seen as options for presidential candidates before in history, a woman and an African American. These factors would make it hard for their campaigns NOT to be candidate-centered, but they both exhibited a party-centric approach as well. A newsweek article I found highlighted the differences between the two candidates nicely. Obama advocated conversation and collaboration, in talking with everyone about various different issues that concern the Democratic party, such as bringing together all the interested parties on global warming and having them hash out their differences in a transparent forum, taking the risk that what they come up with will not be his preferred outcome. While Clinton proposed policy solutions to every problem Democrats were concerned about, and she was going to implement policies whether everyone liked them or not. She has the answers, fulfilling our expectations of an aspiring authority figure and the brightest person in the class. Perhaps this was a political move for her image to portray herself as tough, competitive because she was a woman. They were agents of their parties to an extent, but this time around, considering the historical significance of this election, their image and who they were played a significant role in their election (or not gaining the nomination if you are Hilary).
The internet does play a significant role in the campaign process and posses as an extra vulnerability for candidates. Another article I found claimed that the role of the internet played a significant role in the 2008 election. The internet was a major source of campaign news for young people and candidates were using popular social networking sites such as Facebook, MySpace and twitter to reach out to young voters. The article stated that 42% of those ages 18 to 29 say they regularly learn about the campaign from the internet, the highest percentage for any news source, compared to January 2004, just 20% of young people said they routinely got campaign news from the internet. Candidates are now constantly in the lime-light, they have to be careful what they say, do, and who they are seen with. Any dirt can be found on a candidate and posted to the internet within seconds. This can work for or against the candidates favor, depending on how quickly a candidate can think on his/her feet, or be real and honest with the public. We have seen this vulnerability expressed numerous times on Saturday Night Live as Tine Fey ripped Sarah Palin’s interview apart. This definitely affected how society viewed her as a candidate. She did poorly in news interviews and was mocked by comedians on the television, which could be watched by millions over and over again on youtube. The internet and the media play a huge role in shaping the public’s view of the candidate, as well as, provides an easy access to the insider lives of the candidates.
You had also asked us to scope out a candidate’s webiste to see if it contained any of the recommendations that Teachout had given in her article, I found it was easy to look at Obama’s website. His webiste does form social networks on different websites such as Facebook and MySpace (as links are found on the side bar of his website), but you can also find local events near your home in which you can participate in. Teachout suggests that groups should form meeting places outside of the internet to act together for support and the blogs, forums, and local events allow individuals to do that. You can make friends with other “bloggers” and you can form internet groups with people around the nation, as well as around your community. Another recommendation that stuck out in my mind as I perused Barack’s site was Teachout’s claim not to ask for just money. They do ask for money, but if you donate enough you get this really nifty Barack Obama t-shirt.