The recent presidential election campaign showed the nature of the modern presidency when it comes to campaigning. At all levels, incumbents have an advantage. President Clinton's campaign showed this fact clearly, for he was always able to garner news by holding a press conference or by the judicious release of information, undercutting rival candidate Bob Dole without having to place himself under the glare of the news media. Clinton began the campaign with the nomination secured, but he also began it with a cloud over him because of ethical questions and failed policies over the last four years. In the end, it was probably not his campaign that reelected him but the positive economic indicators. However, it is certain that his campaign did not harm him, and often that is as important as having a campaign that benefits when speaking of an incumbent.
Samuel Kernell makes the observation that the nature of the presidency has changed as those holding the office have tended to spend their time in office campaigning for the next election more than governing. There is always an element of campaigning in governance as those holding office know that their actions will have some effect, pro or con, on their chances in the next election. In the case of the President, the man holding the office knows that his actions will affect not only his own fortunes but those of his party. Kernell finds that the campaign mode that now affects the executive branch so severely has developed because of changes in the political environment and in the ways in which the President reacts to these changes:
Whether in exploiting favorable conditions to advance policy goals or in attempting to improve the incumbent's prestige, the strategic prescriptions of going public put the office on a campaign footing. Governing, according to a Reagan staffer, amounts to little more than an extension of the campaign that brought him into office (Kernell 148).
...