Number 10: North Carolina swings blue in 2008

28 Dec 2009, Posted by Naureen Khan in Decade in Review, News, 1 Comments

No one saw this one coming.

In a state where former president George W. Bush trounced Sen. John Kerry by 12 percentage points earlier in the decade, few predicted that North Carolina would be transformed into an electoral toss-up in the 2008 elections. Indeed, no Democratic presidential candidate had won the reliably conservative-leaning Tar Heel State since president Jimmy Carter defeated Gerald Ford in 1976 in the aftermath of Watergate scandal. And who could expect the state of ultraconservative Jesse Helms to go for the freshman Senator from Illinois, the first African-American major party contender for the presidency?

Barack Obama made his first appearance in North Carolina right here in Durham, alongside fellow Democrat Mayor Bill Bell. After he was able to wrest the North Carolina democratic primary from Hillary Clinton (by double digits), however, speculation began that the changing demographic landscape of the state –driven by an influx of new minority and young voters–as well as dissatisfaction with the economy might give Obama a fighting chance in the general election against Republican Sen. John McCain.

Battle lines were drawn. Both candidates, realizing the importance of the newly crowned swing state, flooded North Carolina with attention, pumping ample campaign funds into the fight and crisscrossing North Carolina until the eleventh hour to persuade last-minute voters. In Greensboro. In Greenville. In Wilmington. In Fayetteville (and again). In Concord. In Raleigh (twice). In Charlotte.

Dukies–as part of the much touted youth vote–got in on the action, canvassing and phone-banking for their preferred candidates and taking advantage of the newly installed early voting station in the Old Trinity room.

Come election day, Democrats swept all of North Carolina’s major races, as The Chronicle followed along at the official Democratic and Republican watch parties in Raleigh and on campus. Barack Obama easily crossed the 360 electoral vote threshold to clinch his historic bid for the White House. Perhaps even more surprisingly, newcomer Kay Hagan stole the Senate race from seasoned vet Elizabeth Dole while then-Lt. Gov. Bev Perdue became North Carolina’s first woman governor, defeating Charlotte mayor Pat McCrory.

North Carolinians, however, had to wait to hear of the fate of their own state. As of Nov. 5, the day after the election, election officials declared the race too close to call. But with 13,000 votes separating Obama from McCain and not enough provisional ballots to make up the difference, the Associated Press called North Carolina’s 15 electoral votes for Obama Nov. 6.

The final tally? 14,912 votes.

Although there are predictions abound of what will shape North Carolina politics in the decade to come, if election 2008 proved anything, it was this: nothing’s a sure thing.

The Democratic sweep of North Carolina was number 10 on our stories of the decade list. These are the issues and events that made headlines for weeks at a time over the last ten years, those that sparked the most debate on campus and beyond, and the ones that we believe will continue to shape our coverage in the years to come.

Interview: Washington Post’s Dana Priest on investigative reporting

20 Oct 2009, Posted by Shaoli Chaudhuri in interview, National Politics, News, 0 Comments

The Chronicle’s Shaoli Chaudhuri interviewed Washington Post investigative reporter Dana Priest Monday. Priest spoke at Duke’s Sanford School of Public Policy about uncovering the CIA’s secret prisons and revealing poor conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. She won Pulitzer prizes for both scoops.

Priest told The Chronicle that reporting during Barack Obama’s presidency is not very different from reporting during George W. Bush’s time in office, and said that students interested in journalism should still go into the profession, despite a tough job market.

Excepts from Chaudhuri’s interview are below:

The Chronicle: What do you hope your listeners, particularly those aspiring to go into journalism, take from today’s lecture and the experiences you share?

Dana Priest: It’s a great field to go into even though there’s a lot of turmoil in the business model. I can’t think of a better way to spend your life if you’re interested in doing a lot of different things, in being your own boss in a lot of ways—effecting change really, which you can do with accountability and investigative reporting. I also hope they get the flavor for the excitement of it—the story behind the story of secret prisons, and Walter Reed and the important role journalism plays in our democracy.

TC: If you could take on another beat anywhere in the U.S., where would it be and what would you write about?

DP: I’m at the place where I’ve always wanted to be. If I had a second life, I would do more on the environment and really look into false claim of greenness, but also prove the scientific evidence for different changes in environmental things, the atmosphere, climate change. I’d go to places where there’s degradation and really describe that.

TC: Could you tell me a little about how working during the Obama administration differs from working during the Bush administration?

DP: It really does not differ at all…The same people are in charge of dealing with the press. They’re not more open…I’m not surprised by it. Administration to administration there aren’t big differences in the area of intelligence…Maybe [Obama] will try harder in the future.

TC: Your reports on the CIA secret prisons earned you a Pulitzer, but another consequence was that the CIA fired one of your alleged sources. Did this impact your views on publishing classified information?

DP: No. People who work in the government have to follow different rules than people who don’t. You certainly wouldn’t want to stop what you’re doing as a reporter because someone might decide to go after the people who might be helping you. After 9/11 we automatically went into the classified arena. You automatically get into really sensitive areas [with investigative reporting].

TC: How have you seen journalism evolve over the years and what do you think the future has in store for the profession?

DP: Right now, papers are dying left and right and they’re cutting back on investigative reporting. And if that trend does not stop we are going to be a different country…I still find young people have a lot of desire to get into the field…We haven’t yet figured out how to use the power of the internet to make investigative reporting more powerful and reach more people.

Sanford professor evaluates Obama’s use of media

24 Sep 2009, Posted by Lindsey Rupp in Faculty and Staff, media, National Politics, News, 0 Comments

Ken Rogerson, professor of public policy and director of undergraduate studies at the Sanford School of Public Policy, participated in the New York Times’ Room for Debate blog, “Obama on All Channels,” Sept. 23.

Rogerson was one of several professors, presidential speechwriters and authors to comment on President Barack Obama’s frequent media appearances. Posts addressed whether the president is in danger of being overexposed.

In his post, Rogerson noted that Obama is “doing his job.”

“He is out among the citizens—both virtually and physically—promoting his policy agenda, showing support for existing programs and asking us to think hard about political decisions that are being made,” Rogerson wrote.

Rogerson added that still, Obama may be overexposing himself, leading citizens to prioritize consuming other information available to them in the “maze of modern technology.”

He contrasted the surplus of information about Obama and his doings with the  author J.D. Salinger’s media shyness, noting it is “interesting” that Salinger’s reclusive behavior has made  him  more compelling to the public.

“The next time Salinger decides to say something in public, I suspect people will stop to listen,” Rogerson wrote.

Quoted: Peter Feaver on Obama and Bush diplomacy

20 Sep 2009, Posted by Zachary Tracer in Faculty and Staff, National Politics, News, 0 Comments

Peter Feaver, Alexander F. Hehmeyer professor of political science and director of the Triangle Institute for Security Studies, was quoted in the New York Times Sunday. The article, by Peter Baker, discusses how President Barack Obama has gained few concessions from foreign leaders, despite the good will he has built up abroad.

Here’s Feaver’s take on the matter, as quoted in the Times:

“The problem is he’s asking for roughly the same things President Bush asked for and President Bush didn’t get them, not because he was a boorish diplomat or a cowboy,” said Peter D. Feaver, a former adviser to Mr. Bush now at Duke University. “If that were the case, bringing in the sophisticated, urbane President Obama would have solved the problem. President Bush didn’t get them because these countries had good reasons for not giving them.”

Wilson’s secret strategy

17 Sep 2009, Posted by Braden Hendricks in Backpages, Braden Hendricks, 0 Comments

America has pretty much always operated on a two party system. While there were a few years there in the beginning when there was only one political party, or just protopolitical parties, for the last 190 years straight the government has been opposed in two diametrically opposing forces. Only the names have changed with time, but mostly it has been conservative versus liberal, big government versus small government, a regulated economy versus laissez-faire, etc. etc. Okay, we all know this, but according to some political analysts, America needs the two party system. They say that if there were three major parties, the government would be wildly unstable. One major party would result in a dictatorship state. Well, that seems to make sense, I suppose. I’m no poli-sci major, but clearly there must be a reason for most advanced democracies to have formulated into two-party systems, and it is quite obvious that this will not change anytime soon in this nation- despite the GOP’s best efforts to make a complete laughingstock of itself.

And that’s where Representative Joe Wilson, R-S.C., comes in. The latest gaffer in the recent string of Republican falls-from-grace, Wilson interrupted President Obama’s all-important address to a joint session of Congress concerning health care reform. While not creating the frankly ridiculous hysteria that his speech to schoolchildren caused, Obama’s latest rhetoric performance caused enough ire in Representative Wilson at least for him to shout “You lie!” in a most undignified fashion.

He looks like a cheeser doesn't he? (CAROLINA POLITICS)

See? I wasn't exaggerating. (WINCOAST)