15-8-2007

ANALYZING AMERICA’S
2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

By: Mounzer Sleiman Ph.D

Analyst and Commentator
Specialist in U.S. national security affairs
Washington DC



 15-8-2007

Introduction
The 2008 presidential elections in the United States will be critical in
determining U.S. policy in the Middle East, especially in terms of Iran and Iraq.
With that in mind, let’s look at the American election next year and potential
scenarios.
It should be noted, however, that trying to predict an election a year and a half
early is fraught with difficulties. There is an American political maxim that says a
week is a long time in politics, and that has proven valid. Two years before the
2006 elections, many analysts thought the Republican Party would actually gain
seats in the Senate instead of loosing the majority. And, two years before the 2004
election, many analysts thought that President Bush would fail to win reelection.
This election is unusual in that it is the first time in 55 years that a sitting
president or vice president will not be running. This is undoubtedly an advantage
for the Republicans because the unpopularity of President Bush and the war in
Iraq would probably doom the Republican presidential candidate. This is seen in
polling results that show a generic Democratic candidate beating a generic
Republican presidential candidate.
Another aspect of the political process next year is the dramatic change in the
presidential primary process. Traditionally, the primary season ran from January
until June, with a gradual attrition of candidates who lost primaries and financial
support. The winning candidate would have more than enough delegates to win
the first ballot at the national convention.
This year, most of the delegates who will be going to the national convention
will be selected in the first few weeks of the primary season, before the field has
been thinned by attrition. This will make it harder for the front running candidate
to win the majority of delegates necessary to win the nomination in the first ballot.
The number of states holding elections early has also changed election
strategy. In previous years, candidates would focus their efforts in Iowa and New
Hampshire, even though there were few delegates in these states. The strategy was
to use the wins in these states to gain favorable news stories, boost popularity, and
raise more money. This time, candidates are looking at other states, where the
number of delegates is greater and their chances are better. For instance,
Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani will ignore those two states because he is
considered too liberal to win in Iowa and unlikely to win in New Hampshire where
Republican candidate Mitt Romney is better known. Instead, he is focusing his
resources on Florida, where he has a better chance of winning and getting more
delegates.
This change in the primary season brings up another possibility. Since few
candidates can afford to advertise in all the states holding primaries in late
January and early February, each candidate will focus on states where they can

2
 15-8-2007

win. The result is that instead of having a clearer picture of which the presidential
nominees will be, the situation could be more clouded as several candidates could
have garnered wins and delegates. That being the case, it’s possible that no single
candidate could garner the necessary majority of the delegates necessary to win the
nomination at the national conventions. In that case, it will be a brokered
convention, where some candidates may offer to support another in return for
being the vice presidential nominee. It’s even possible that the eventual
presidential nominee may not even be one of the current candidates.

LOOKING AT THE CANDIDATES

Both parties have challenges facing them in 2008 and the primary season will help
determine their future. In the Democratic Party, the challenge is about who will
control the party - the Clinton faction or a new group. Since 1992, the Clintons have
controlled the party in most regards and many of their supporters are in key positions
in the Democratic establishment. This has upset some Democrats, who feel that the
Clintons have not acted in the party’s best interest.
The Democratic primaries will determine who is in charge. If Hillary Clinton
wins the presidential nomination and the presidential election, the Clinton faction will
continue to keep its hold on the party. If another Democratic candidate becomes the
nominee or Hillary Clinton losses the general election, many of the Clinton people may
be forced out and a new leadership will come onboard.
The Republican Party also faces a choice - in this case where the geographical
base of the party will be. Traditionally, the Republican Party had a strong base in the
Northeastern part of the United States. While the Northeastern Republicans were
more liberal, the Western Republicans were more conservative. The balance between
liberals and conservatives began to change as more people moved out west. The first
conflict between Western and Northeastern Republicans came in 1964, when
conservative Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona won the nomination. However, the
conflict didn’t reach a conclusion until 1980, when Ronald Reagan, a Westerner, won.
Since then, the party has relied upon its base in the West and South to win elections.
The result is that the Republican Party in the Northeast has virtually disappeared,
which has made the Republican Party considerably more conservative.
This election is a battle of the geographical and ideological parts of the
Republican Party. Two of the top three candidates are from the Northeast, while one
candidate is from the West. And, one of the northeastern candidates, Rudy Giuliani is
perceived as the strongest candidate in polling. Consequently, the question
Republicans must answer is if they should nominate a winner, even though he is liberal
or go with a more conservative candidate who will have a harder time winning. The
answer to that question will frame the future of the Republican Party for years.
Although there is a focus on issues, the problem is that the candidates shape their
position on issues to reflect the views of the listeners. And, their published positions

3
 15-8-2007

(which we use here) are kept so bland to appeal to everyone. One example is John
Edwards, who has said that he considers the phrase “the war on terror” to just be a
slogan (Council on Foreign Relations speech, May 23, 2007), but says one of his major
foreign goals is to deal with the same war on terror ( Edwards Campaign website).
Although issues can be complex and candidates will make them as vague as
possible, the two parties have different ideological views on America and its foreign
policy. That can give an idea of how they will act. The Democratic view of America is
as one of the leaders amongst many. It is also more Eurocentric. The result is that
Democratic candidates are more willing to work with, negotiate with, and act in
conjunction with other nations, especially the Europeans.
Republican candidates see America as the world’s only superpower, which has
gained its position through military and technological superiority and the American
values of democracy and economic freedom. Although working with other nations is
desirable, they feel that America’s role as world leader must force them to act
unilaterally, even if other nations don’t want to.
Although issues frame some of the election, two factors usually determine who
wins. These are the candidates’ “story” and their likeability. The “story” is the brief
resume of the candidate and what makes him or her special. Obviously on the
republican side, the best story in the race is that of Senator John McCain, who was a
naval aviator in the Vietnam War and who was captured and held prisoner by the
North Vietnamese for five years. Although he had a chance to obtain an early release,
he remained in captivity and was tortured. A story like that appeals to many
independent voters because it shows his strength and character.
The other factor that is critical is likeability. In America, this means determining
who a voter would prefer to have come to the house for dinner. This was a critical
factor for President Bush, who was seen as more likable than either Al Gore in 2000 or
John Kerry in 2004.
According to early polls, the candidates with the highest likeability are Barack
Obama and Rudy Giuliani. Of the major candidates, the one with the lowest
likeability ratings is Hillary Clinton, who has about half the voters disliking her.
Ironically, while the Democratic candidates bring up similarities with Vietnam, it
is probably the Democrats that could be damaged most by the comparisons. In 1964,
President Lyndon Johnson campaigned against Senator Barry Goldwater as the
candidate that wouldn’t get the US involved in the Vietnam War. When Johnson won
reelection, he realized that he couldn’t afford the political or diplomatic consequences
of losing the war. Consequently, he slowly boosted the number of American forces
until he was as fully engaged in the war as Goldwater had proposed. If the Vietnam
analogy holds, a Democratic president could be just as likely to prosecute the war in
Iraq as a Republican president.

With that in mind, here are the candidates for the Democratic nomination for President:

4
 15-8-2007

HILLARY CLINTON
Hillary Clinton has had a lot of visibility in the last 17 years - first as wife of
President Bill Clinton and then as junior senator from the state of New York.
Her Middle Eastern policies have been shaped by her years in the White House
and it’s not unreasonable to think that her policies may be much like her husband’s.
Her position papers make it clear she is pro-Israel and she has spoken out against the
Palestinians.
Her record on Iraq is very ambiguous. She did vote to invade Iraq in 2002, but
has criticized the handling of the war since then. Her position paper on the Iraq War
clearly states that as the president, Clinton would end the war (Clinton website).
However, Many analysts think Clinton will be the most likely to keep American forces
in Iraq, of all Democratic candidates. She has also called for American troops to stay
in Iraq to train Iraqis, provide logistical support, and carry out anti-terrorism
operations (Clinton website). As a result, she has lost the support of the anti-war
faction of her party.
Clinton as First Lady and Senator has traveled to more than 80 countries, which gives
her a considerable experience. Unlike the current administration, she is expected to
have a more multilateral approach to foreign policy. She has said that she thinks the
United States is stronger when it leads though alliances (Clinton campaign website).
As a result, she will be expected to work more through the UN and the European
Community. She has spoken about continuing the Northern Ireland peace process and
stopping the conflict in Darfur.
While Clinton has criticized Iran for its nuclear program, it remains unsure what
she would do if elected. Military action is unlikely under a Clinton administration, but
she may regard any attack by the Israeli’s on Iranian nuclear facilities favorably.
There is a serious question about how much time Clinton would devote to foreign
affairs. One major plank to her platform is creating a national healthcare system,
which would be difficult to push through Congress, even if the Democrats control both
houses. Consequently, she could find herself involved in domestic legislative battles
which would distract her.
Clinton has much strength in this election. The first is name recognition, which is
nearly 100%. She is also the heir to the Clinton campaign organization, which was
quite successful in the 1990s.
However, she has some critical weaknesses. The first is a high unfavorability
rating of about 50%. She is seen as manipulative and more focused on power.
Normally, this would doom a campaign, however, with her effective campaign
organization; she stands a good chance to become president.

BARACK OBAMA
Senator Barack Obama from Illinois has become something of a national
phenomenon in the United States. He first came to national attention in 2004 when he

5
 15-8-2007

easily won the Illinois senate seat and since then has been considered the first black
candidate that has a serious chance to win the presidency.
As a new face on the national scene, Obama has tried to paint himself as the
challenger to the status quo, with innovative answers. He has highlighted his
bipartisan work with Senate Republicans and attempts to solve intractable problems
(Obama campaign website).
Since Obama has only been in the Senate for little more than two years, he has a
scant record on foreign affairs, although he is a member of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee. His focus has been on the issue of Weapons of Mass Destruction
and the conflicts in Africa. His one major piece of legislation was to join with
Republican Senator Lugar to find and destroy conventional weapons caches. He also
pushed for additional funding for tracking weapons of mass destruction.
Unlike the other Democratic Candidates, Obama was opposed to the Iraq War
in 2002 (Obama campaign website). He has called for the United States to
immediately leave Iraq. He has criticized the Iranian nuclear program. He has drawn
some fire from Jewish voters because in a national debate, he failed to mention Israel
as an important ally. He also was chastised for mentioning the suffering of the
Palestinian people.
Obama’s position papers also indicate a greater focus on Africa. He has pushed
to stop conflicts in the Congo and Darfur. He also supported the Special Court for
Sierra Leone to try former president of Liberia, Charles Taylor who is accused of
crimes against humanity. Given this interest, it is likely for Obama to focus more than
other candidates on the conflict in Somalia.
As a new senator, Obama hasn’t had time to develop a trademark issue that
voters can expect him to push as president. However, his position on the homeland
security committee, foreign affairs committee, and the fact that he has lived in
countries in Africa and Asia, indicates that he may have more of a world view than
other candidates.
Obama’s strength is that he is a new face in the Democratic field of candidates.
His liberal stands have also endeared him to the liberal base of the Democratic Party,
which has a strong impact on who the nominee is. As a black candidate, he is expected
to energize black voters in the United States, which will be critical in toss up states like
Ohio.
However, Obama has several serious weaknesses. The first is that he has little
experience in the Senate and national politics. Comments in the past show he is more
likely to make verbal mistakes in a campaign, which can sink a candidate. His
popularity has surged so fast and there are questions on whether he could sustain it.
He is also running against Hillary Clinton, who has more campaign experience.

JOHN EDWARDS
John Edwards from North Carolina ran for President in 2004 and was picked to
be the vice presidential candidate. He served one term in the Senate and it was hoped
that he would attract southern voters who usually vote for Republicans. Before

6
 15-8-2007

becoming a senator, he was a successful trial lawyer.

Edwards is more focused on domestic issues and hasn’t seriously addressed
Middle Eastern issues. His major focuses are poverty in the United States and health
care. His position papers call for an immediate withdrawal of 40,000 to 50,000 troops
from Iraq, with the reminder leaving within 12 – 18 months (Edwards campaign
website). He has also called for international talks on Iraq, which would include Syria
and Iran. His other foreign issues include the conflict in Darfur and world poverty.
Since his domestic programs will require considerable effort, he will need to
spend his energy pushing his agenda through congress instead of looking outwards.
As a former vice presidential candidate, he has a degree of name recognition
many candidates don’t have. He also has a strong base of support from the unions and
trial lawyers, who both are large contributors to political campaigns. Also, as a
wealthy man, he can use his money if campaign contributions dry up.
Edwards’s weakness is that he is prone to making the gaffes that give his political
opponents a chance to attack him. Although he talks about how America is split
between the rich and the poor, his tendency to flaunt his wealth has left him open to
charges that he doesn’t understand the poor.

OTHER CANDIDATES
Often people who run for president know that they will not get the nomination.
What they really want is to be picked for Vice President, which leaves them in a prime
position to run for president later. That is probably the reason behind the candidacies
of senators Joe Biden and Chris Dodd. However, there are two other candidates that
have some chance of picking up steam and winning the nomination.
AL GORE. The vice president under Clinton and the loser of the close 2000
presidential election, Al Gore has positioned himself to run for president if the
Democrats are discontented with the current choice of candidates.
Gore has become a proponent of environmental activism and his movie An
Inconvenient Truth won a prestigious American movie award. He is also nominated
for a Nobel Peace Prize. If he wins that prize and Democrats are uninterested in the
current field of candidates, he may announce that he will run for President. He could
also become the nominee if the Democratic National Convention is deadlocked.
If anything stands between Gore and the nomination, it is Clinton. Hillary has a
strong lock on white Democratic females and anyone seeking to breakthrough in the
Democratic nomination has to make major inroads in this demographic.
Gore’s strength is his years of experience as a senator and vice president. And, if
he wins the Nobel Peace Prize, his “story,” which is critical for a successful run for
president would have been enhanced.
Gore’s weaknesses are many of the statements he has made since leaving office,
which would be used by his opponents. And, as a former loser of a presidential
election, some Democrats are afraid that he could lose again.
.

7
 15-8-2007

BILL RICHARDSON.
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson has the potential to change the geographic
politics of the Democratic Party. As a governor of a western state, he has the potential
to take votes away from that Republican part of the country. He also has experience,
both as a governor and a member of Clinton’s cabinet.
As a Hispanic candidate, he also promises to energize the largest minority in the
United States. He is pro-gun, which could help the Democrats if the Republicans run
an anti-gun candidate like Rudy Giuliani. As a moderate on many issues, he could be
the best potential Democratic candidate in the field. However, it remains to be seen if
he can garner the votes necessary to win the Democratic nomination.
As noted earlier, the Republican field is interesting in that it offers two strong
candidates from the Northeast.

RUDY GIULIANI.
The leader in the Republican field is Rudy Giuliani, who was mayor of New York
City and a former federal prosecutor. He is widely credited with turning New York
City around in the 1990s and was seen at his best after the World Trade Center
buildings were hit on 9/11.
Giuliani is pro Israel and probably wouldn’t push them to work with the
Palestinians. Although he has criticized the president on the Iraq war policy, he will
continue to support the military presence in Iraq and will not tolerate an Iranian
nuclear program. In a recent debate, he said that he would help Israel carry out a
strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Unlike his opponents from the Senate, Giuliani has executive experience, which is
something American voters prefer.
Giuliani’s weakness is that he is much more liberal than the Republican voters.
His stands on abortion and gun control aren’t in line with the views of most
Republicans. However, Republican voters do want a winner; so many voters may
ignore these views and support him.

JOHN MCCAIN.
Senator McCain ran against George Bush in 2000 for the Republican nomination
and has kept his name in the public since then. As was mentioned earlier, he was in
the Navy and a prisoner of war before becoming a senator from Arizona. He has
maintained a high profile since 2000 and has a base of support amongst independents.
McCain has made it clear that he supports the war in Iraq and will have a strong
position against Iran. He was an early advocate of sending more troops to Iraq. He is
considered pro-Israel, however, he is known for taking dramatic positions. As a result,
he is probably the most likely of the Republican candidates to pressure Israel.

8
 15-8-2007

However, he has made it clear that he will not tolerate a nuclear Iran that threatens
Israel.
He has sponsored many pieces of landmark legislation as a senator. However, as
a president, his position papers indicate that after the War in Iraq, cutting government
spending will be his primary focus.
The Vietnam veteran’s strengths are name recognition and his story. American
voters like heroes and his military experience will help garner votes, especially from
veterans. He is also liked by moderates, who will decide the general election.
However, McCain has several weaknesses. Although a conservative, he has
alienated the conservative base by sponsoring legislation on campaign finance and
immigration. He has also missed many votes in the US Senate recently, which will be
used as an issue by his opponents.
McCain has recently been hampered by his support of comprehensive
immigration reform, which is currently unpopular with the American electorate. This
has dragged down his popularity numbers, and depending on its long term effect,
could seriously hamper his campaign. As this report been prepared more bad news hit
his campaign, most of his advisors left his campaign for lack of funds and for
differences in strategy. Most observers are predicting his withdrawal from the race
soon.
One weakness is his age. If elected, he will be 72 when he becomes president.
This could become a real issue if he starts to look old or shows any lack of energy
during the campaign. The age issue may make him run for only one term, which
means the vice presidential choice would be very critical since that person may be the
candidate in 2012.

MITT ROMNEY.
Romney is the former governor of Massachusetts. He grew up in Michigan, where
his father was governor. His father was also a presidential candidate, who lost in the
1968 primaries to Richard Nixon. He has those executive skills that voters prefer.
Romney’s top national and Middle Eastern focus is on defeating radical Islam
(Romney campaign website). He thinks an effective strategy will involve military and
diplomatic actions, including supporting modern Muslim nations. His campaign
hasn’t addressed Israel, but he is expected to be pro-Israel as most candidates are.
Romney’s second priority is improving America’s economy in order to compete
with Asia. He also favors simplifying America’s complex tax system.
Romney is trying to position himself as the “family values” candidate in order to
appeal to conservative Republicans. However, as the governor of the very liberal state
of Massachusetts, he had to make compromises that don’t sit well with the Republican
base.
Romney’s strength is his fund raising ability. Although he is behind both Giuliani
and McCain in the polls, he has raised more money than either of them. This means
that he is less likely to be forced out of the campaign for monetary reasons.

9
 15-8-2007

Romney has many weaknesses. Like Giuliani, he is from the Northeast and much
more liberal than the majority of Republican voters. His religion is Mormon, which
will alienate military voters in this predominantly Christian nation.
As a result of these weaknesses, he is the one Republican candidate that polls
show is unable to beat the likely Democratic nominees. He will undoubtedly influence
the campaign.

FRED THOMPSON.
Although he hasn’t announced yet, former senator Fred Thompson has made
moves that lead analysts to believe he will run, including the formation of an
exploratory committee that will look at his chances. If he does decide to run, the race
for the Republican nomination will be dramatically changed.
The current list of front runner candidates hasn’t energized the conservative base
of Republicans. Consequently, many are looking for someone, who is conservative and
who has a chance to win the general election in 2008. For many Republicans, that
person is Fred Thompson. This became obvious in the polls that took place just after
he formed his exploratory committee, which showed him running in second place, just
after Giuliani.
Thompson became a senator when he took over the seat of Al Gore, who became
Vice President. During his six years, he established a good record as a conservative.
However, he was known long before he became a senator from Tennessee. He served
as a lawyer on the Watergate Committee that looked into impeaching Richard Nixon.
After that, he practiced law until he was asked to act in a movie. Although he had no
acting experience, he did well and starred in several movies, including one where he
played the President of the United States. He currently is in a television show called
Law and Order.
Thompson has typical Republican views on the Middle East. He is pro Israel and
favors staying in Iraq. He would also oppose any Iranian nuclear program. However,
since he hasn’t announced, there are no position papers available to review.
Thompson has several strengths. As an actor who has been in several movies, he
has a degree of name and face recognition that helps in a campaign. He is also a good
speaker, which is a plus for a presidential candidate. And, as a solid conservative, he
will energize the Republican base as the three other front runners haven’t.
Thompson’s biggest weakness is that he hasn’t decided to run for office. This
means that currently he has neither the staff nor money to run a campaign. His
opponents have been running, in some cases, for years and have staffs and money in
the bank. If Thompson decides to run, he will have to move quickly to catch up.

OTHER CANDIDATES.
The Republican field is full of other candidates, who won’t win, but may fill the
vice presidential position. They include Senator Sam Brownback, Former

10
 15-8-2007

Congressman Newt Gingrich ( not yet announced), Former governor Mike Huckabee,
Congressman Duncan Hunter, and Congressman Tom Tancredo. None of them have
the money or resources to beat the top contenders.

HOW THE 2008 ELECTION MAY GO

Although it’s early in the election cycle, based on polling the probable candidates
for the 2008 election are Senator Hillary Clinton and former New York Mayor Rudy
Giuliani. However, frontrunners have failed in the past and both have weaknesses. In
that case, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney . However, as noted earlier, Fred
Thompson, Al Gore, and Bill Richardson have the potential to upset the race.
Before looking at the potential races, let’s look at the electoral balance. The 2000
and 2004 races were close in terms of electoral votes, with the Democrats winning most
of their electoral votes from the East and West coast. The Republicans won most of
the center of the nation, especially the Western states and the South.
If all things were equal, the Republicans should win again, however there are
some differences. The first is the unpopularity of President Bush, which will drag the
Republican ticket down. The second is the condition of the Republican Party in Ohio,
which is a toss up state that has voted for Bush both times. Given the unpopularity of
Republicans in Ohio now, the state is likely to vote Democratic, which means a win for
the Democratic nominee. With that in mind, let’s look at the potential races.

CLINTON/GIULIANI.
This would be unusual because opposing presidential candidates are rarely from
the same state. And, in this case, it tends to help the Republicans. Giuliani has a
strong base of support in the Northeast, which is traditionally a Democratic base.
Current polls show him beating Clinton in Connecticut, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania
- all states that the Democrats must win in order to win the presidency. As a result,
much of the campaigning will be in the Northeast, which the Democrats normally take
for advantage. This leaves tossup states like Ohio receiving less Democratic attention,
which will help the Republicans. The result is that Giuliani would probably get a
greater electoral margin than Bush did in 2004.

. ROMNEY or THOMSON/CLINTON.
This would be a very close election and victory for either candidate would
probably revolve around several Midwest states that Bush won narrowly in 2004.
These include Ohio, Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin. Clinton would have to improve
her likeability ratings if she is to win. Given the close election, the vice presidential
candidates and their ability to win their home state might be critical. Expect Clinton
to pick a Democratic governor from a state that leans Republican. Republican

11
 15-8-2007

nominee would probably pick a Republican from a Midwest state that might go for
Clinton.

. ROMNEY or THOMSON/OBAMA.
This is also a close race nationally and the large number of blacks in Ohio could
give Obama the edge. The election may revolve around a gaffe caused by any
candidates. Given the close election, the vice presidential candidates and their ability
to win their home state might be critical.

GIULIANI/OBAMA.
Again, Giuliani has a strong base of support in the Northeast that Obama needs
in order to even hope to win. Obama would be forced to campaign in the Northeast,
while Giulaini could spend more time in the Midwest shoring up Republican support
in these marginal states that have large black populations. Giuliani would likely win.

WRAPUP
Although the 2008 presidential election offers many choices, it would be a
mistake to think that there will be major policy shifts when a new president is
inaugurated. The American policy on the Palestinian issue hasn’t changed markedly
despite the number of presidents who have become engaged in the process. And, it’s
unrealistic to expect US troops quickly leave Iraq after January 20, 2009, if they
haven’t left before then. No American president will want to face the political damage
that would occur if withdrawal is perceived as retreat and defeat. Consequently, while
the role of American soldiers would change in Iraq, and many units would probably be
pulled out, there will be no quick withdrawal of Americans from Iraq.
The situation with Iran is more problematic. Obama and Edwards would be less
likely to take vigorous action against Iran and would probably use the UN and Europe
to take action. Clinton, McCain, and Giuliani would probably be more likely to take
more aggressive action.
Military action also depends much on the condition of the US military. In the
1990s, under the Clinton Administration, the US moved away from a policy of being
able to face a military challenge in two parts of the world in order to cut forces and
save money. The administration also decided to focus on “non contact” methods of
warfare like bombing. Consequently, the war in Kosovo was entirely an air war.
This left the US military severely weakened after 9/11, with a smaller force unfit
for actual combat and sporting equipment designed for fighting the Soviets in Europe.
In the past few years, the military has been challenged to meet current and future
needs. As a result changes must be fully completed before the military is ready to
engage in more land battles. Here’s where the differences in presidents will probably

12
 15-8-2007

show. A Democratic President would be more likely to trim military funding to get the
money for domestic spending, while a Republican president will attempt to complete
the military transformation.
American style of democracy is known for its continuity and resiliency. The
forces of the office often determine how a president will act rather than his or her
previous positions. Despite the name of the occupant of the White House, the policies
will remain much the same.

******************

13