On Super Tuesday, as the United States approaches its first $1 billion election, the chorus sounds a familiar refrain.

The conventional wisdom regarding campaign spending -- that the U.S. is spending too much on campaigns, or that certain groups have too much influence -- reminds me of what Mark Twain said about the the public's attitude toward the weather: "Everybody complains about the weather, but no one ever seems to be able to do something about it."

While some would argue that campaign spending is not a problem, for the sake of argument let's assume that the conventional wisdom on campaign spending is valid. The next logical question would be, what changes could and should we make to the current campaign spending laws?

Limits on campaign spending? The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Congress and regulators can do this, but only up to a degree, as beyond a certain point it violates the First Amendment's free speech right.

[Note: This is the second of a two-part series on the race for the Democratic Party's nomination for president of the United States. Read part one: Obama's New Hampshire strength highlights Clinton's vulnerablity]

Clinton's mistakes

Why didn't Clinton win by a bigger margin in the New Hampshire primary? The main reason was a misguided campaign strategy that presented her in too many town meetings and gymnasium forums, and not enough as a concerned, positive, relating, trustworthy leader and as a real person. Clinton has never been accused of not being intelligent or organized or professional: what she has been accused of is lacking that "likability" and "press the flesh" quality that every modern presidential candidate -- and every president -- must display.

Ironically, Hillary Clinton's campaign strategy in Iowa and New Hampshire departed from President Bill Clinton's winning presidential campaign strategy. What was an example of President Clinton's positive vibe? During his campaigns, when Bill Clinton arrived at a location for a speech and there were 400 people lined up outside of the hall, who couldn't get in, waiting to see the candidate, Bill Clinton wanted to shake the hands of all 400 people outside. No joke. Clinton would arrive one hour, two hours late for an event, if it meant he could shake hands and make positive, personal contact with as many people as possible. Hillary Clinton must do the same: she must be real, show that she cares, and show that's she's human, just like everybody else. That's a big part of what Hillary Clinton must do to move forward and win the Democratic Party's nomination.

There's an old political adage that goes, "Regarding the nomination process, Republicans fall in line, Democrats fall in love." Tuesday's New Hampshire primary provided ample evidence of the above, for each party.
Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) strong showing instantaneously catapults him to formidable contender status in the Democratic race. His performance also suggests -- and we won't know this empirically until survey research has been analyzed -- that he has expanded the electorate. Obama increased voter turnout particularly, and unexpectedly, among voters ages 18-21. This age group has had the lowest turnout rate of any age group in primaries and presidential elections since 1952 when political scientists began keeping statistics.

Obama's appeal among independents was also high, and -- also troubling for the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) -- his appeal among Democratic Party-affiliated voters was much stronger than expected. Furthermore, African-American voters -- although not a major factor in New Hampshire -- now appear to be shifting decidedly in his direction nationally, a big change from the previously overwhelming support they gave to Clinton as late as this summer. As a result of the latter, look for the Clinton camp to face a markedly tougher fight in the South Carolina primary, which is the next hurdle, along with Nevada, before Tsunami Tuesday (formerly called Super Tuesday), on February 5.

Sources close to CNN broadcast journalist/commentator Lou Dobbs said he is seriously considering a run for the U.S. presidency in 2008, The Wall Street Journal reported.

Dobbs, who formerly hosted CNN's MoneyLine business news show and currently hosts CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight has seen both his ratings and his name recognition rise after his work's focus turned away from news reporting and anchoring and toward political and economic commentary.

Dobbs, an independent, displays an ideology and a political world view that many have characterized as a modified hybrid of Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan -- i.e. populism combined with strong views against free trade (or current trade frameworks) and against illegal immigration.

Dobbs is a frequent critic of both the Democratic and Republican parties, which he argues don't represent the interests of the typical person or the middle class. His show's website describes him as "an independent populist and the leading media advocate for working men and women, their families, our middle class and the American way of life."

Political Analysis: Unless there's a tidal wave of discontent in the American electorate not tallied by pollsters, Dobbs, as a third-party candidate or as an Independent, has virtually no chance of being elected president of the United States. Although his name recognition is rising and he has a positive public image, it's highly unlikely Dobbs could assemble the campaign staff and money required to compete effectively against Democratic and Republican parties' nominees.

However, this is not to say that Dobbs could not broaden the discourse, i.e. "force the discussion of less-publicized issues" during a debate. Dobbs could accomplish this, but it must be emphasized that making points in a debate is a much easier task than receiving enough votes to win the electoral college vote for U.S. president.