In 2008 Race, Big Ideas Matter

Over the next year, Ideas will bring you Scoops that are engaging — and still politically relevant and enjoyable to read. The stories you see previewed here today are just a glimpse — and the start of something big.

When we began to brainstorm the Ideas in July, correspondents came back with feature ideas left and right: They were ambitious, thoughtful, and altogether one-of-a-kind. Everyday, we anxiously await the crop of stories that come in. And we hope you find yourself waiting soon, too.

Here's what's to expect from some of our Ideas correspondents over the next several weeks... (If you want to become an Ideas correspondent or contribute to the section, simply click here and tell us why.)

From Rhodes Scholars and Ivy Leaguers to a graduate of little-known Eureka College, America's presidents have spanned the spectrum of "smart." President George W. Bush campaigned in 2000 on the image of being a "regular guy," but the tide seems to be turning against the idea of having an "amiable slacker" in office, at least according to some political analysts.

In 2008, will voters be swayed by the well-spoken politician, or the candidate who tries to play it down-to-earth? Or will party lines continue to trump all else? And just what does it mean to be an intellectual and a presidential candidate?

In the middle of what might have been a mind-numbingly dull description of his flat tax proposal, presidential candidate Mike Huckabee (R-Ark) managed to crack up the crowd with a zinger: "We've had a Congress that's spent money like John Edwards at a beauty shop."

Thanks to the internet, a clever comment can spread like lightening. It's an era of YouTube and The Daily Show, and if it's suddenly more important than ever for candidates to appear approachable and, yes, even funny, then Huckabee might be playing his cards just right. What happens when a candidate botches a joke? Should candidates risk a barrage of rotten tomatoes for a laugh?

Picture it: You're a high-profile politician, one month after you've thrown your hat in the ring for the presidency in '08. You've collected a savvy staff. You've incinerated all the skeletons in your closet. You're ready to present your big issue: Poverty in America.

So you take to the streets of the inner-city, to the back roads of rural regions left behind by corporate culture, to ghost towns forgotten by the Information Age. Three weeks into launch, there it is, all the validation the voters need: on the front page of every major paper, a photo, stretching five columns wide, of you kissing a barefoot baby.

There's one catch. It might not work. And who is the poverty message for after all — the poor? Or the bleeding hearts?

Back to School: The Ethics of Education
By Alan Kennedy-Shaffer

When September arrived, it could only mean one thing for 75 million Americans: back to school. For the leading presidential candidates, the month signaled something entirely different: back to the stump. For the voters who sought to compare the candidates' commitment to public education but did not have time to delve deeply into the congressional record, September provided a proxy: where do the candidates choose to send their children to school?

Which candidates who claim public education as a priority have children who attend private school? And will it be enough to sway the undecided voter on Election Day?