Just food for thought: Pomona held a discussion of the 2008 presidential election featuring a few of the Politics Faculty and the new Con-Law Professor, Justin Crowe, made an interesting argument that the real "winner" of the campaign is Bush's approach to presidential powers. In particular, he argued that while Democrats have attacked Bush's use of policy, They have not questioned his authority to implement those policies, especially with respect to national security. More specifically, Crowe mentioned the lack of transparency in the Bush administration and the unlikelihood that any of the candidates would operate differently.

I think the argument has some gaps (torture being the main one) but it is interesting to consider that the main Democratic candidates are not campaigning against presidential authority. In fact, I think it says a lot that the exception to this is Ron Paul as the loudest voice for less Presidential voice.