As I noted in a previous post, the media has tried to save us the trouble of voting and they've anointed "front-runners" for the primaries which don't even begin before January. Sure, a few candidates poll higher than others, but at this point in the game, it's almost all name-recognition and because the media has decided to overweight these polls by concentrating on a handful of candidates, they've unknowingly tried to develop a self-fulfilling prophesy.

One thing that has struck me about their arrogance is the idea that come November 2008, they think we'll be choosing between the former Mayor of New York and the Senator from the NYC suburbs, not to mention that they keep trying to draw the current Mayor of New York into the race. Yes, one of the New York candidates may squeak through, but there's no way the country would stand for only getting to choose between New Yorkers and though Sen. Clinton has some well-known weaknesses, I'd say that if only one candidate were to be left behind, it'd be Mr Giuliani because he has no base and Fred Thompson looms on the horizon.

Another example of their stupidity is the constant refrain that Bill Richardson is running for Vice-President.

In my opinion, they should get real and quit smelling each other's farts.

As I've noted in the past, Gov. Richardson is one of the most popular politicians among his constituents in the history of the republic. He was re-elected with 69% of the vote and that was with full knowledge that he'd be running for President and according to the Albuquerque Journal, 32% of his Presidential campaign contributions have come from his home state. While by the same token, Hillary Clinton collected 22% of her largess from her constituents and Barack Obama only received 14% of his monies from Illinois.

Needless to say, I'm not ready for Mr Richardson to concede by any means and hopefully I'll be posting some additional primary-by-primary analysis over the next few days, but for those "in the know" to think that he's running for VP shows that they haven't studied the question. Once again, as I've pointed out in the past; Sen. Domenici is facing re-election next year and if they were familiar with New Mexico politics, they'd realize that only Bill Richardson has a better than average chance of beating him.

Why would he even consider VP, if he has pretty good shot at a lifetime term in the Senate?
After all, if I'm reading the law correctly, he has until February 12th to decide.

Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post was on Tuesday's Newshour commenting on the CNN/YouTube debate, when he told Gwen Ifil;

You know, I actually think that, as I've watched these debates -- and this is the fourth Democratic one we've had already -- as I've watched them, the margin between the best performance and the worst performance gets smaller and smaller.

I felt like last night -- you know, I do a winners and losers column at WashingtonPost.com -- I had trouble picking losers, just because I thought everybody did pretty well. But the problem for people like Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd is that they really need a breakthrough, a big moment. And these debates haven't given them that yet.

I thought Dennis Kucinich did quite well last night. I thought Joe Biden did quite well. I thought Bill Richardson was better than he had been. And I thought Chris Dodd did well. But the problem is, what did we learn or see last night that fundamentally alters the dynamic, which is Clinton, Obama and possibly Edwards? I don't think we saw all that much that is going to make people who are watching think about this race in a different way.

Well, Mr Cillizza: How can one expect the media-defined second tier to have a breaktrough moment or alter the dynamic, when the supposed first tier gets almost twice as many opportunities to speak?

Unequal distribution of time has been a problem with most of the debates this primary season and it exists on both sides of the aisle. This is unfair and it does not provide the citizenry a chance to not only take an equal measure of all the candidates, but it also prevents their ideas from reaching the largest possible audience and our democracy is not being served.

Granted, there is no legal recourse to force the networks, sponsors, political parties and organizing committees to provide equal time to all qualified candidates, but there is the court of public opinion and that is why I urge everyone reading this post to sign this virtual petition and spread its address, far and wide.

Censorship can take many forms and among them is limiting the debate.

(x-posted)

I like the idea of Barack Obama, it's just that I'm having a problem getting behind him because I'm not seeing any substance. Instead, I'm hearing a lot of pablum and benign phrases, but no specific ideas or tangible plans for the future.

There's still time for him to change and as he finds his footing, perhaps he can get some knowledgeable people in his corner, so that he can develop or endorse some concrete proposals, but all I'm hearing is just a bunch of empty rhetoric and because the media is so enamored, I hate to say it, but I'm beginning to resent his candidacy.

Just today, there were headlines every which way; "Obama calls for universal health care" and if you read the articles, they all quote him as saying; "I am absolutely determined that by the end of the first term of the next president, we should have universal health care in this country". Well that's fine and dandy Barry, but how do propose we get there?

Hillary has a lot of knowledge about health care and the idea of universal coverage. I can't say for certain that her '93 plan was right, but it is a foundation and reportedly, she's about to introduce a bill to expand current coverage for children. Bill Richardson has been busy setting up health insurance programs, here in New Mexico and though I don't know the ins and outs of the NM system, I do know that our problems are mostly with delivery because I'm not hearing any complaints about the programs.

Obama apparently thinks that universal coverage is a worthy goal, but he's not saying how he'd lead in that direction. Heck, I think flying cars are a good idea and just the other night, I watched a futurist predict them, but there's still not one parked in my garage.

For another example of Senator Obama's ability to dance around an issue, I suggest you go back to the Charlie Gibson interviews that I linked from a previous post. Once again, compare what Hillary says about Iraq to how Mr Obama responded to the same question. One candidate offered strategic options which could help us achieve our goal, while the other mouthed a bunch of words.

I'm not the only one who has noticed this tendency from the media darling. John Edwards has been quoted as saying; "Identifying the problem and talking about hope is waiting for tomorrow," which some bloggers have said was directed toward Senator Obama. While in a Washington Post piece which I'm about to link, Al Sharpton was quoted as saying about the Obama campaign; "Right now we're hearing a lot of media razzle-dazzle. I'm not hearing a lot of meat, or a lot of content".

The Sharpton quote comes from an article discussing the reluctance of established black leaders to give him more than tepid support. It's a similar situation, as was recently written-up in Salon. Though it should be said that in her op-ed, Debra J. Dickerson goes a lot further by declaring him not black, but instead, she describes him as being a child of an African immigrant.

The argument is rooted in similar territory to that of the WaPo, in that he wasn't really part of the civil rights movement and hasn't paid his dues, so to the leadership and the African-American community, he's mostly an unknown. Though, I do have to say in Barry's defense, he really is of the generation that came of age after the major battles were won and because he spent so much of his youth living in Hawaii and overseas, by the time he got to the mainland, things were remarkably different.

But, it also looks like he's going to need a Sister Souljah moment to reassure the black leadership. Perhaps, if he starts talking policy specifics, he'll be able to overcome their fears without being confrontational, but the easiest way would be for him to say something negative to indict an element of the white establishment and such an act, may or may not not help him in the long run.

I've said in a couple of my posts that I wasn't making an endorsement. Over the past several days, I realized that I've never publicly endorsed anyone during the primaries and I usually wait until after the convention to put up my yard signs. Sure, if you ask me what I think, I'd share my thoughts as I've been doing in this space, but I've never actually endorsed a non-nominated candidate.

While on the other hand, I have been more open with my opposition to certain candidates and because I like to play the game, I'll only actively oppose, those whom I don't think would be able to win or be competitive in the general election.

Thus far, Barack Obama hasn't gotten to that point and it is very early in the process, so he can still change.

Sometime, hopefully soon, the man is going to have to say something and risk alienating somebody. Right now, I feel there's a lot of people seeing their own reflection in his candidacy and perhaps if Mr Obama were to rediscover his spine or find his voice, the Democratic party will be able to avoid Narcissus' fate.
---

This is the second in a series. Bill Richardson

(x-posted)

After the President's State of the Union, I moved from the computer to the television and because I was hoping for a new Boston Legal, I immediately switched to ABC and caught some of Charles Gibson's post-speech wrap-up.

What struck me as I watched him interview Hillary Clinton, followed by Barack Obama with essentially the same questions was twofold, first I noticed the way both candidates played to their base in response to his question about the health care proposal, then I noticed the specifics in Hillary's approach toward Iraq, while Mr Obama seemed content with platitudes and empty rhetoric.

There's no way that I can do justice with a compare and contrast on the candidates' answers about Iraq and stay within the "fair use" provisions of the copyright law, so I invite anyone and everyone to play both of the above-linked clips and make their own judgements. Of course, if you'd like to follow-up with a comment to this post or a transcript of your own, please feel free and while I'm at it; Please note that if you load Hillary first, the Obama plainly visible in the sidebar is from this morning, so you'd have to scroll down or follow my link to get his response from last night, which would put the two candidates on equal footing.

Nevertheless, here's a transcript of their responses to Mr Gibson's health care question, so that I can illustrate my thoughts about their answers; how each appeared to play toward their base and how they have different approaches toward the issues.

Hillary Clinton

But with respect specifically to the health care proposal: The details we know so far are really troubling. I mean we're talking about exchanging one regressive tax deduction for another, and funding this alleged expansion of health care by cutting money to public hospitals and community health centers. So, we would be decimating the safety net in order to try to use the tax code to create more opportunities for people to go into the market, whether or not they can buy anything. So, we'll have a lot of time to debate that.

Barack Obama

What I saw that concerned me is that I don't see a way of controlling costs through this process and for ordinary families right now, one of their biggest concerns is rising co-payments, deductibles, premiums. It's not clear that the overall system is going to see significant cost containment and that I think is something that has to be addressed. And quality improvements, making sure we get more bang for the buck that wasn't part of the proposal. It does appear though that potentially you could get some additional coverage and so, one of the things we've got to look at is given the amount of money the President is proposing to spend, at least on the tax revenue side, are we going to actually get the most coverage that we could, or are there other approaches. But, I think that's a conversation that we should have with the President.

Unfortunately, I didn't see a Charles Gibson with any of the other candidates and I'm not finding anything online, so in the interest of fairness, here's a link to a thing John Edwards did on MSNBC and another to his written statement which was released, almost immediately following the official Democratic response. And, I know that Bill Richardson did an on-camera with the local ABC/CNN affiliate for their late news, but I didn't see it and I can't find any clips of him anywhere, so here's a link to his campaign's written statement which is dated last night, but wasn't available on the website, as late as 4 AM, Mountain.

Finally, because it's me and I like linky-dinky posts, I'm going to throw out links to the things Ms Clinton and Mr Obama did with MSNBC and try to throw particular attention toward that of the Senator from Chicago because it too, illustrates a couple of points.

I realize that most people who read my rantings have no idea about Bill Richardson or they just recognize him as a public figure, left over from a previous administration. And, once again as I've said about other candidates: This is not an endorsement, but I did feel this would be an opportune time for me to elaborate on a couple of things which could be in the wind.

First of all and as a student of politics, the list of people so adored by their electorate is pretty small. When I first came to New Mexico, I had the same opinion of Mr Richardson as everyone else; He's just an opportunistic politician. What I didn't realize is that he's very, very skilled in the art and that he would actually do well, as Governor.

On the night of his announcement, the local television stations did man-on-the-street interviews, where I don't think a single negative thing was said about him. After all, he was just re-elected with 69% of the vote and the most recent poll shows him winning the NM Democratic Caucus, if they were held today, ahead of the rest of the field. What may be even more surprising to those unfamiliar with Mr Richardson, he also polls one percent better among New Mexico Independents, than he does among registered Democrats.

In the past, I've suggested that Gov Richardson may be well suited for the vice-presidential position, perhaps to balance out a younger candidate and to open doors in the West, but now that he's been re-elected and the dust has settled, I have to believe what he told George Stephanopoulos, when he said that he has no interest in the number two slot.

What I've yet to hear on the national stage, Pete Domenici will be 76 in 2008, which means if the Richardson presidential bid fails to find traction, he may be wanting to hold the door open for a run at the Senate and this could be one of the reasons, why so much of his announcement hoopla has been centered around his accomplishments and the State of New Mexico. Barring something completely unforeseen and especially in the event of Mr Domenici's retirement, Bill Richardson would have a lock on the election.

Right now, it looks like most national polls put him in single digits and I'd watch for him to make his move in New Hampshire. I don't know when he'll reassess his position and if Senator Domenici were to announce that he'll be running again, Mr Richardson might put his ambitions on the back burner. But, before anyone counts him out of the presidential race, I'd take a look at the man because there aren't many politicians more able, so he might just surprise you, as he has me.
---

This was the first in a series. Barack Obama

(x-posted)

I don't know if it's a sign of future problems, but no matter how many times I show my son how to float a boat in the tub, he insists on sinking it and driving around the bottom.

÷÷÷
In all likelihood, I'm going to have to take my kids and a couple of their friends to see Happy Feet at the local theater sometime this weekend. In preparation, I decided to look to see if there's a story or if it's just an extended music video starring dancing penguins.

I started my research by clickng the big ad on the Yahoo! homepage and I found that there is a story, but what was somewhat surprising is that it lists the following as providing additional music; Prince, Yolanda Adams, Fantasia Barrino, Gia Farrell, Chrissie Hynde, Patti LaBelle, k.d. lang, Jason Mraz and Pink.

Both, the video and ads clearly feature songs from Stevie Wonder and Queen, but it's not until the bottom of the cast list that you find them listed along with Elvis, Lennon and McCartney and quite a few others.

÷÷÷
Perhaps as something of a follow-up to last night's post; This morning I got a slight kick from a wire service "correction" that said it was a placenta which was found in a college toilet on the Navajo Nation and not a fetus, as it was first reported.

Try as I might, I can't find a free electronic copy of the complete little brief that I read, so to footnote this post, I've got to link to the full source which has loads more information. But, what tickled me and kinda-sorta relates to my previous post, one of the responding cops is quoted after being asked about the correction; "It does look like a sack with a child. We're not doctors."

÷÷÷
There was a big guy who walked around town pretending to play drums with his hands, while listening to his iPod. Then, he got some drumsticks and I've seen him all over town miming Metallica or something. Yesterday, I saw him sitting behind a drumset in the back of a pickup and he was serenading the grocery store parking lot, all by playing along with his iPod which we couldn't hear.

÷÷÷
And finally, it's kind of nice that the President has mellowed a bit, he's saying things that implies a willingness to listen to the point of view of others and some of the stuff I've seen, you could almost call him contrite.

Of course the Newsweek cover might have something to do with it, but in celebration of the voter's part and to wrap things up in a neat little bow, here's a YouTube of Freddy Mercury doing "We are the Champions" and another of him singing "Somebody to Love".

From the "Barone Blog" on USNews.com

The Edison/Mitofsky Research exit poll proved somewhat misleading, as past exit polls have. The Fox News decision desk personnel decided to abandon the exit poll entirely as a guide to calling winners on the grounds that it overstated Democratic percentages by 6 to 8 percent. They made this decision based on information from EMR that the actual tallies in the precincts tested showed Democrats winning 6 to 8 percent fewer votes than the exit pollsters from those precincts reported. Exit polls from 1992 on have consistently overstated Democratic percentages, most notably in the high turnout elections of 1992 and 2004.

The late Warren Mitofsky, who created the first exit poll for CBS News in 1968, went back and examined the 2004 results and found that the biggest discrepancies between actual precinct votes and the exit pollsters' results occurred in precincts where the exit poll personnel were female graduate students. All those discrepancies overstated the Democratic vote. Joe Lenski, the current EMR boss, tried to hire fewer young women as exit poll interviewers... The fault may be with the interviewers (do they approach only the voters they think simpatico), but it may also be with the respondents. Mitofsky has told me that almost everyone approached to fill out an exit poll questionnaire in countries like Mexico and Russia does so, while about half the people approached in the United States refuse. Perhaps Republicans are more likely than Democrats to refuse, especially when the interviewer is a young woman whose appearance signals she is some kind of Bush hater.

Off-the-cuff, I'd say that the possibility might exist where Republicans tend to more often be older men, while Democrats may be statistically younger and more female, so there could be a level of increased comfort for the interviewee. But, I have no real numbers to support these assumptions at this time and I'm not really sure how much stock, I put into the idea of sex being an issue.
---

PS) I promise this isn't becoming a clip journal, but I've got a thing this afternoon and wouldn't want this topic to pass.

With two Independents and the way things are going, the Senate could possibly end in a tie. As for leadership, I believe the guy from Vermont usually goes with the Democrats and that'd leave Joe Lieberman as the power broker. It'd be his vote that could decide who runs the Senate and though things could still change, but because the possibility would be even greater for more ties in the Senate, I'm going to point back toward my Cheney quote from the morning.

Yesterday, Wonkette picked-up my post about CNN Pipeline broadcasting two hours worth of a boat stuck in the mud (thanks) and early this morning, I made a snarky comment in response to their post noting the Wilson/Madrid race, which may be worth repeating;

Because we've made the forward-thinking switch to new-fangled paper ballots (fill-in the circles), then it may take a while before we know whether the mean, nasty Congresswoman beat the incompetent Attorney General in what promises be a very close race.

Plus, the lines are promising to be horrendous.
Who knew, but it takes longer to mark a paper ballot?

(unedited comment reprint, with links intact)

I was just flipping back through the episodes of "The Show with Zefrank" that I've missed since my last visit, when a cute Cheneyism struck me and I googled for the original source, before posting this quote from "The Show";

In the event of a tie in the Senate, the Vice President casts the deciding vote. Speaking to a crowd earlier this month, Cheney said; "The thing I've noticed is that every time I get to vote, our side wins".

( And, Now for Something Else that's Decidedly Non-Partisan )

I just got an automated call featuring a recording of Bill Richardson. He asked that I vote for Democrat Jim Baca in the State Land Commissioner race, but what I found most curious was the disclaimer at the end; "Paid for by Richardson for Governor".

In a previous post, I suggested that if you really oppose the President's positions, then you really have no choice but to vote Democratic this November. Anything else, an unrealistic, idealist vote for a third party, except possibly where the Democrat has a wide and comfortable margin would be throwing your vote away. My comments were intended to be specific to this election, but I had no idea, the depth of opposition the President's Iraq policy faced.

According to the newest Zogby/Reuters Poll, Patricia Madrid, the Democratic Attorney General of New Mexico has widened her lead over incumbent Heather Wilson in the first Congressional District to nine points. As you might imagine, Representative Wilson does come with some baggage of her own, but one could easily argue that Ms Madrid has performed miserably on the stump and may have run one of the worst campaigns in the history of the republic.

For months, she allowed Ms Wilson to control the debate and the Congresswoman was happy to oblige by keeping the focus on one of Ms Madrid's achilles heels; Her incompetent performance as Attorney General and the fact that not only can she claim no true victories, but she has actually harmed a major Federal prosecution.

Their ads just went back and forth for weeks on end, in what will be the most expensive races in the history of this state and one of the most expensive in the nation, as nothing but a bunch of she said/she saids and though it may have been obvious to anyone who was paying attention, subsequent investigations haven't done anything to support Ms Madrid and her position in the matter.

Though, once she gained her footing and the out of state groups started pouring money into anti-Wilson commercials, the campaign's focus has shifted from defense mode and to the ties linking Rep Wilson and the White House. This would include video of both the President and Ms Wlson saying "stay the course". Perhaps luckily for Ms Madrid, the campaign focus has gone so far from the fact that she's an incompetent buffoon, the Wilson campaign felt motivated to go out of their way and explain that Laura Bush is not appearing her behalf, but instead is doing a "get out the vote" for all Republican candidates.

As election day has been getting closer and early voting has already started, Ms Madrid had ended at least one ad with something along the lines of she'll "stand up to George Bush and tell him when he's wrong, as he is in Iraq". Last weekend, Bill Richardson, who not only is facing re-election with what could be a historic margin, but he's already firming-up the ground for his presidential bid by proposing ten million dollars for embryonic stem cell research; Governor Richardson made an appearance on Ms Madrid's behalf and all of the clips that I've seen from his stump have been about George Bush and the Republican Congress.

Thankfully, I don't live in New Mexico's 1st District, so I don't have to choose.

As I've either said or have implied up and down this blog, I oppose most of the President's policies and I've endorsed something along the lines of the Murtha plan for Iraq. This should be enough of a reason for me to support the Democrat, but Ms Madrid is just such a terrible candidate, who can apparently point toward no real accomplishments or toward any with which I would agree; She'll obviously be an ineffective lawmaker and voting for her would have to be done while holding my nose.

Contrary to what the President's supporters might say, victory in Iraq has not been defined. Even the most lollipop scenario of a democratic government existing in peace is a pipe-dream because it'll always be easier for terrorists to attack in that region, rather than New York City. But, worthless platitudes and vague statements about telling someone when they're wrong, or generalities about timetables for withdrawal without endorsing any other plans is just as dangerous.

George Bush may have made the bed, but we have to lie in it and though I support the idea of a Democratic majority with subpoena power for the protection of our Constitution and the future of our democracy; I'm really glad that I don't live in Albuquerque's Northeast Heights because as a politician and judging from her performance in office, Patricia Madrid would force me to weigh my vote.

According to his website, the young lady on the right is the eighteen year old daughter of former Chattanooga Mayor and current Senatorial candidate Bob Corker from Tennessee. Her name is Julia and yesterday, the Wonkette posted a couple of racy pics from her Facebook. Last night, as I was contemplating a comment and wishing that I could use my Paris Hilton icon on the Wonkette site, I read through a lot of her father's site and discovered the above three-quarter length, campaign picture.

This marks only the latest Facebook entry to be publicly disclosed by one of the Gawker sites and the blogosphere in general. If you follow their link, you'd see that they recently revealed a photo from Senator Bill Frist's middle son's collection and that they suspect it could be tied to a "cease and desist" order from the networking site. Obviously they are contesting the order because Miss Corker's images are post-letter and they've even tried to do a little investigation into the relationship with privacy and the founder of Facebook. Also, I'm supportive of Gawker's position for the reason cited by editor Nick Douglas in the comments to the letter; If you go to Ohio State, your Facebook can be viewed by more than 50,000 people, so it can't really be considered private. Of course, I also don't have access to Facebook because I don't have an university email, so I may be basing some of my beliefs in my own prejudice.

The easy thing that may first spring to mind, when you look at the ganked photos from the children of Senator Frist and the man who hopes to succeed him is that the children of Tennessee politicians are a wild bunch. This could even be further evidenced by the publicity which surrounded the time that Al Gore III was clocked doing 97mph in a 55 zone. But, I think it goes more to show that though the children of politicians and celebrities should be extra aware of the public face of the internet; I'm sure many people remember when the blogosphere outed the daughter of noted homophobe Alan Keyes and though they had to publicly work through the thing, she seems no worse for wear and according to her current blog, she's even getting a few speaking engagements from the deal. As a recent New York Times article discussed, pretty much everyone should be conscious of exactly what they're putting online, how it might be viewed in the future or under different circumstances and be fully aware of the permanence of the 'net.

The primary season for New Mexico has come and gone. Unfortunately, an idiot legacy won a position on the ballot for Attorney General as a Democrat, so unless I learn something dramatic, I'm going to go ahead and endorse the Republican for this race. At this moment in time, I don't know much about Jim Bibb, except that he intends to make public corruption a priority and everyone around these parts knows that would be a good thing, plus he's the son-in-law of another former, Democratic Governor. Either way, he has to be better than Gary King, a man who obviously thinks he's entitled, who's clearly afraid of an honest day's work and who has only a handful of campaign platforms, but enough for me to oppose him from the outset.

Mr King is the son of a three term Governor, a former legislator, who has also held appointed office in DC, most likely with the help of Bill Richardson. I remember he ran as the Democrat for the 2nd Congressional District, last time around and the big criticism from the other side was that he didn't actually live in the district. His current website claims he lives near Moriarty and the media has mentioned a place called Stanley, neither of which appears to be in the 2nd District, so obviously that charge was valid.

I did not know prior to this weekend, when one of his primary opponents, whom I also opposed sponsored the Caleb Crump Show, but Mr King has apparently never won a contested race. Though, none of these things alone are enough for me to speak out, instead it is his position on some of the issues that has motivated this post.

One of Mr King's big planks is that he'd like to install GPS tracking units on sex offenders. I sincerely doubt that this may even be legal, but if it is, I find the concept immoral, simplistic and repugnant. The term "sex offender" is far too generic and it encompasses a lot of different crimes, plus if someone has paid or is paying their debt to society, I don't feel they should be tracked from space.

He also claims to have spearheaded the effort to regulate the precursors for methamphetamine and though I'm sure his stint in the State House was long before the legislation that will take effect in July was passed, I don't see how one could campaign on this idea and not support the discriminatory law that is about to throw a monkey wrench into the lives of many New Mexicans.

Starting July 1st, we will have to show ID and purchase cold medicines from a licensed pharmacy. In places like Albuquerque and Santa Fe this shouldn't be a problem, but the majority of the state doesn't have a local pharmacy and in places like my cosmopolitan town of 10,000, you'd have to buy anticipate your medical needs before 9pm on weeknights and 6pm on the weekends. I feel this is similar to the asinine regulation that all convenience stores must have two employees on duty between 11pm and 5am. It really wasn't a big deal in the cities that also have 24-hour Walmarts and grocery stores, but out here in the boonies, it means that most of the time our 24-hour convenient store is closed, due to the lack of available help that can also pass a corporate-required drug test.

I may bill myself as a Democrat, but I have supported Republicans in the past and unless there's something far too unknown about Mr Bibb, obviously I've discovered another instance. To me, legitimacy is a much more important attribute for a politician than party.

I've written about this a couple of times in comments, but now it's time to bring it up top and put it in one of my occasional Sunday editorials. I realize that politically, not everyone who reads this post is going to agree with its conclusion and though I describe myself as liberal Democrat, it may not always be obvious from my stance.

Recently, I made fun of something I thought somewhat arrogant and entirely stupid that came out of Jane Fonda's mouth; "When I was an active anorexic/bulimic, if I had read my book, it would've had a big effect on me". The cockiness of that statement is obvious. The stupidity is rooted in the idea that's she's saying, if I knew everything that I know now, I would've made different choices.

She made this statement on an episode of Charlie Rose and I only caught the tail end, as I was surfing around. The next afternoon because I wanted to get the phrasing right and because I've always liked Lady Jane, I watched the entire interview.

During the part where she was discussing the current administration and its propensity toward war, Guest Host Barbara Walters asked her about the Democrats and though I'm not going to pay $9.95 for the transcript or even $1.99 for the Google Video; Basically, she said that it's time to stop waiting for the Democrats and we should form a new party, a national group dedicated to a new way of thinking and use that to counteract the neocons and Bush.

In the past, I've made reference to the way that Tina Fey, Jay Leno and people of that sort have been belittling the Democrats and diffusing the little power that our former candidates might possess. And in a comment to another journal, I've clipped the following quote from Timothy Crouse's 1973 book, The Boys on the Bus;

It is an unwritten law of current political journalism that conservative Republican Presidential candidates usually receive gentler treatment from the press than do liberal Democrats. Since most reporters are moderate or liberal Democrats themselves, they try to offset their natural biases by going out of their way to be fair to conservatives. No candidate ever had a more considerate press corps than Barry Goldwater in 1964, and four years later the campaign press gave every possible break to Richard Nixon. Reporters sense a social barrier between themselves and most conservative candidates; their relations are formal and meticulously polite. But reporters tend to loosen up around liberal candidates and campaign staffs; since they share the same ideology, they can joke with the staffers, even needle them, without being branded the 'enemy'. If a reporter has been trained in the traditional, 'objective' school of journalism, this ideological and social closeness to the candidate and the staff makes him feel guilty; he begins to compensate; the more he likes and agrees with the candidate personally, the harder he judges him professionally. Like a coach sizing up his own son in spring tryouts, the reporter becomes doubly severe.

Because they are out of power and with the proliferation of television channels, along with a perceived overcompensation by journalists, not to mention the fact that CNN goes out of their way not to appear "liberal"; The Democratic message has failed to gain traction. This will most likely remain true until they have an identifiable leader and with all apologies to my friends in Nevada and California, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are not what the doctor ordered.

In all actuality, if you oppose the current administration, their missteps and grabs for power, you don't have time to form a new party. Instead, many people need to temporarily let go of their allegiance to the Greens and the uninformed, web-based Libertarian movement. Both of these parties have existed for a long time and they've fielded candidates up and down the line, but no one expects them to take a majority in either house of Congress next November.

Alternatively, if you oppose the current administration, you're going to have to let go of the long-run, futuristic dreams and blindly support your Democratic candidate for Congress. For, if the Democrats can secure the majority in the House, they will get subpoena power and by bogging the administration down in investigations, they'll be able to throw a monkey wrench into many of their plans. A new party, third party, or either of the alternatives mentioned may be a laudatory goal, but you have to work with what you've got. If you oppose the administration, their goals or methods and if your local Democratic candidate for Congress isn't a complete idiot, a child molester or arrogant legacy; You really have no other choice.