Jim Twombly is assistant dean for educational technology in the College of Arts and Sciences. An adjunct assistant professor of political science, he specializes in American politics, the American presidency and Congress.

Why must candidates for elective office begin stumping so much earlier now?

A large part of the reason is the need for money and the current system by which contributions and expenditures are regulated. Secondarily is the need to get known. That is to say, with the proliferation of TV and radio outlets, candidates need to be sure to hit each media market so as to maximize their exposure. Candidates don't get media attention simply because they show up. They need to develop relationships with both the media audience and with reporters and editors, all of which takes time.

Aren't these excessively long campaigns counterproductive? Aren't voters bored with the whole thing before we even get to election year?

To a certain extent, yes. There are, however, a number of factors that make lengthy campaigns necessary. Obviously, we've already touched on a couple-campaign finance and this "getting-to-know-you" process. Voters are a tough audience. On one hand, they want to know candidates well before making a choice. If they don't know a candidate well, they are likely to vote for his/her opponent. This is especially true of races where there is an incumbent; voters are quite likely to go with "the devil they know," as opposed to some unknown entity. On the other hand, voters seem to tune out easily when they become overloaded and perhaps choose to stay home. There are bright spots, though. When a "fresh face" arrives on the scene, it seems to spark some interest. Voters seem to need something new and slightly challenging to hold their interest. That's why candidates like McCain and Bradley generate so much enthusiasm from their supporters and so much interest from the media. It may be an old analogy, but politics is quite a bit like sports. Take for example the line from "The Last Hurrah" about politics being the biggest spectator sport in the country. That may not be as true as it once was, but that may be because the "game" has gotten a bit dull. Now, whenever baseball has encountered similar problems, it has tinkered with the rules to enhance fan interest. For example, the incorporation of such rules changes over the years as altering the height of the pitcher's mound, the designated hitter and inter-league play all were designed to make the sport more competitive. Politics could learn something here, but with the two major parties looking to preserve the status quo, change probably won't happen very soon. I happen to be a big supporter of the two-party system, but also believe that politics is a marketplace and the two major parties should be able to put themselves before the voters and live or die by the law of supply-and-demand.

George W. Bush refuses to speak about some aspects of his personal life, e.g., possible past drug use, and Bill Bradley won't even say if he goes to church. Will that fly? Do we really need to know such personal details about presidential candidates?

I personally do not believe that a candidate's personal life should concern us, unless the behavior in question is illegal or affects his or her ability to perform. Past drug use would be relevant if we found out that the candidate had been a pusher or had been a heavy user of addictive substances. Current alcoholism-that is, the candidate appears in public while intoxicated or shows up to work drunk-would be a problem and should be subject to public scrutiny. A candidate having an affair probably should not be any of our business. A candidate who is abusive, has had multiple affairs, or exhibits sexual behavior that is illegal (rape, sex with minors, etc.) should be subject to such scrutiny. What a candidate's religion is should not be a matter for us to judge; we do have a constitution that guarantees freedom of religion, after all.

Give us some historical perspective on the "carpetbagger" phenomenon. Did Bobby Kennedy face that when he ran for the Senate from New York in the 1960s? How much damage does the label do to Hillary Rodham Clinton?

I was a bit young at the time of Bobby Kennedy's run in 1964, so I have no first-hand recollection. However, though he did face some criticism for claiming a New York residence when he had lived primarily in Massachusetts and Virginia, he ultimately was successful. In his case, he had not established residence by election day and could not even vote for himself. Hillary has at least taken care of that problem. I think it would be more damaging for Hillary Clinton if she were running for the House and not the Senate. There is a residency requirement for the House and none for the Senate. We also view the Senate as a more statesmanlike body than the House. It is in the House of Representatives where more parochial interests tend to dominate and the Senate often seems to take into account the larger picture. In the end, I think that what will matter most is whether she or Rudy Giuliani runs the better campaign. This will be a clash of political titans-especially with regard to money. This race will make the Huffington-Feinstein California contest look like penny-ante poker.

Do you think Hillary can be an effective senator, or does she have too much baggage?

I think the question is whether or not that baggage impedes her ability as a candidate, not as a senator. From what I've seen of the First Lady, I think she has all the necessary skills to be a very effective legislator.

Did you watch Hillary on David Letterman, and what did you think of the interview?

I thought she was great. Here she was, on this late-night talk show with a host who has a reputation for being pro-Giuliani and for his ability to skewer certain guests, and she made him feel nervous. I'm sure she was well-prepped, but it came off in a fairly natural way. Her zingers about Dave driving by the new house honking and about not having Bill on the show were great. I think the appearance was a plus for her.

What question do you wish I had asked, and how would you have answered it?

I thought, after the first two questions, you might ask how we could fix campaigns and campaign finance. We need to find a way to end the influence of big-money interests in campaigns without infringing on people's first-amendment rights. That means we need to put the onus on candidates to report publicly and in a timely fashion who their supporters are. Once elected to office, we need these individuals to recuse themselves from decision-making when a question involves one of their larger contributors. We need to devise a system where all candidates can have inexpensive access to the airwaves and cables so that voters can learn about candidates and issues without the need for candidates to raise fantastic sums of money years in advance of their race. We need candidates and reporters who stick to the issues. We don't need to know each and every day how many points a candidate has gained or lost in a poll. We need to know where they stand on issues, from social security to tax reform to environmental protection to local economic and development concerns.