Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
Because watching a televised debate is really the only chance most voters have to see the candidates answer questions and have to think on their feet in a live format. Which means that the more debates that happen, the more people get to see the candidates. And that is indeed a good thing, because it informs the electorate about the candidates to a certain degree.
Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have, of late, been inserting Populist themes into their speeches, in an effort to (depending on who you listen to) win votes in Ohio and Pennsylvania, or court John Edwards' endorsement. Since this may be the last time I will address talking points to both campaigns, I thought I'd run through a few handy Neo-Populist positions for either Hillary or Barack to insert into their speeches.
I personally graduated high school and went to college during Ronald Reagan's regime. And while I can think of no policy or position of his which I supported or agreed with, even I would occasionally get sucked in when he was speaking on television. Because he sounded so sincere and looked like everyone's grandfather to boot. Not for nothing was he called "The Great Communicator."
Since Republicans have all but anointed John McCain as their presidential nominee, it's about time to start speculating on who he's going to choose to fill out his ticket. Most of this speculation has so far centered around the possibilities of McCain giving the nod to one of his primary opponents (Huckabee or Romney), in order to shore up his support among this GOP faction, or that right-wing interest group. Going further afield, there have been some guesses about Republican officeholders who may help a McCain ticket in other ways. But there's one name I haven't heard mentioned yet, one which should worry Democrats: Condoleezza Rice.
There are two different aspects of voter demographics and the media worth commenting on in the presidential race this year. The first, about the Republicans, the media has so far largely ignored (but may pick up on later); and the second, about the Democrats, where the media itself seems to be the problem.
Professional pundits like conventional wisdom. It's comfortable for them to say what "everyone knows" with the voice of authority. But, seeing how often this so-called "wisdom" has been wrong already this year, one can't help but wonder about yet another pillar of political wisdom: that there are only so many "battleground" states in play this year, and that the red/blue electoral map from the last two elections will generally stay the same this time around. Because there is a good chance that this may be wrong, too.
It's been a busy week for Democrats, with a lot to cover. There has been good news and bad, but on a whole I'd have to judge the week a success for Democrats in general. Led by what the Washington Post reports as a "rare uprising" of House Democrats. But before I get to that, I'd like to offer one observation from the campaign trail.
Now, while many are holding out hope for a "Dream Ticket" with both their names on it, I personally don't think it's going to happen. Choosing a running mate is just about the only fun thing the candidate gets to do during their entire campaign. And they rarely choose the person everyone expects them to. They also rarely choose former contenders for the nomination, although it does sometimes happen. They usually either choose someone who they are personally comfortable with (think: Dick Cheney), or someone who their campaign managers assure them will "bring them votes" either geographically or otherwise (think: L.B.J.).
Riding to my rescue was one of Huffington Post's own commenters, who not only suggested I write a pro-Hillary article, but also outlined what I should say in it. I thought the idea had merit, but instead of just swiping his idea and writing my own words around it, I offered him the opportunity to write it himself.
All hope is not lost, though. Because the House passed a version of the bill which did not include the retroactive amnesty for lawbreaking telecommunications companies. Because the Senate bill is different, it now goes to conference committee. What gets voted out of committee will be voted on again by both the House and Senate. It's a slim reed to cling to at this point, but hopefully House Democrats will stand firm against Bush and the GOP.