Terence Samuel

Terence Samuel is a Prospect senior correspondent and the author of The Upper House: A Journey behind the Closed Doors of the U.S. Senate, published in May by Palgrave Macmillan. Follow him on Twitter.

Recent Articles

The Other Edwards

Donna Edwards' successful congressional campaign was fueled in part by her opponent's votes on Iraq. Could this tell us something about how the Democratic presidential race will end?

Despite the persistent intensity and the episodic acrimony of the presidential nominating contests, we can generally agree that this has not been a campaign about issues. The policy differences between the candidates, particularly on the Democratic side where things have gotten nastiest, are negligible to the point of being nonexistent.

The Post-Ironic Campaign

As we head into the next big weekend of primaries, have we thrown out conventional wisdom in favor of a muddled field and an indeterminately long primary season?

The presidential campaign of 2008 may represent some kind of the high-water mark of this post-ironic age in which we live. Look at where we have found ourselves: After seven roller-coaster years of George W. Bush, the country is forced to roll the dice on a completely new game: a woman, a black man, a Mormon, or someone so old that it'd almost be like he stepped off of Mt. Rushmore into the job rather than the other way around. You’d think we’d be in the mood to dial back to a safer choice.

Not an option apparently.

Gambling on Vegas

The Nevada primary could provide a breather from the potentially destructive race-versus-gender debate brewing in the Democratic presidential primary.

(iStock Photo)

One of the inviolable rules about Nevada politics is that a candidate may never, ever succumb to the puerile temptation to say, "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas." Maybe the only thing worse would be to support the burial of nuclear waste under Yucca Mountain or to refer to the state's largest industry as "gambling" instead of "gaming."

The Crowded Obama Bandwagon

The need for change has become the mantra of the political season, and it seems like everyone is coming around to the charms of Barack Obama. That doesn't mean that he's home free yet.

After the many months of prognoses and analyses, after the handicapping and speculations and the polls within the margin of error, Iowa, with its actual voters and actual voting, seems to have focused the attention of the presidential campaigns. And, we now know, the crucial issue facing this war-weary, economically skittish country is change.

The need for change has become the mantra of the political season. On both sides of the nominating process the amount of change promised may be enough to completely remake the entire future of humankind.

Campaigns Preparing for Nasty, Not Nice

After a primary season full of mudslinging, will Democratic voters still be able to unite around a nominee?

The conventional wisdom going into this campaign season was that Democratic voters were, overall, much more enthusiastic about their presidential choices than Republicans were about theirs. In general, most Democrats felt they could live with any of the top three candidates seeking the nomination. There were the conspicuous Hillary-haters, but not enough of them to keep her from looking like the prohibitive favorite most of the time.