The Democrat(ic?) party selected William Jennings Bryan to run for President in 1908. The party chose their candidate in 1906. At this time, a century ago, the Republican party hasn't chosen their candidate (at least not publicly), although there are a number of contenders. One being Albert J. Beveridge.

The timing of presidential politics in 1906-1908 is interesting. The campaign of 1908 seems to have started earlier than most presidential campaigns I can remember - save for the seven Democrats running in 2003. I am not a presidential historian, but I'd wager it took much longer to campaign in the past as communications and transportation technology were less efficient. Further, from what I have read about the debates between politicians from that era (and earlier), it seems that the debate was oftentimes more in-depth, and perhaps honest, than today; thereby requiring a little more time than a YouTube video. Finally, as many in today's media and society seem shocked that the 2008 presidential campaign seems to be in second, if not third, gear, it is informative (at least to me) to see that the long-campaign is nothing new in our history.

The Feb. 26, 1907 NYT reports on a written "debate" between Mr. Bryan and Mr. Beveridge which was printed in Reader Magazine, focusing, in part, on the role of the states relative to the federal government. It is interesting that Bryan would "debate" with a presidential candidate (not nominee) of the other party so early in the campaign - such interchange today would be so refreshing it might actually be terrifying. Perhaps the willingness of Bryan to engage Beveridge in debate is a signal of the strength of Bryan's (and Beveridge's) convictions?

See if you can identify the candidate by their language:

1.

A systematic absorption of power by the Federal Government would not only cause discontent and weaken the attachment of the people for the Government, but a withdrawal of power from the State would breed indifference to public affairs - the forerunner of despotism.

The further the legislative body is from the community affected by the law, the easier it is for special interests to control. This has been illustrated in State Legislatures when long-time charters have been granted to franchise corporations by the votes of members whose constituents, not being interested, do not hold them to strict account, and it would be worse if Congress acted on the same subjects.

2.

Every corporation, so great that its business in Nation-wide, is championing State rights. Every railroad that has felt the regulating hand of the Nation's Government, is earnestly for State rights. Every trust attorney is declaiming against the dangers of centralization. Do you know who is not? I do not say that all advocates of State rights are trust attorneys, but all trust attorneys are advocates of State rights.

We are one people, speaking one language, living in one country, under one flag. What affects one of us, affects all of us. Most of the evils that develop among us are common evils, to be reached only by a common remedy. Scarcely any evil is confined to one State. It is clear that where an evil is general, States acting separately cannot uniformly attack it; and it is a fact that in the case of every general evil the States, acting separately, never have uniformly attacked it. The American people alone, acting in common - that is, acting as a Nation - can destroy evils which affect them in common - that is, affect them as a Nation.

Answer below the fold.

1. William Jennings Bryan
2. Albert J. Beveridge

Wow.