Showing posts with label edwards. Show all posts
Showing posts with label edwards. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Doing the Right Thing - Being Human

Politics is a battlefield... That goes without saying. It is the most vicious game that one can participate in. There seem to be little rules, no clear fouls, and the out-of-bounds seems non-existent.

So why do we do it... why do we blog on political issues? Why do we run for office, or why are we involved in political parties?

Each and every person can provide a very different answer. Some seek glory, some seek social change, some seek to simply protect the constitution. There are some who see it as their civic duty, some who see it as a career.

No matter what your motivation, there seems to be an aspect that has gone missing... that is the human element.


It is widely understood that we (the masses) are no longer considered citizens, rather consumers. We are no longer concerned citizens, we are poll results. We are seen as mindless drones in need of political ads to sway us, or commentating to change our vote.

Wake up, readers... we are not mindless drones, and we cannot allow ourselves to be 'led out to pasture' by media, political ads, etc. We must demand that our politicians NOT consider politics as "business as usual"... we must demand the human element!

Take the time, as a political leader, to reach out to me as a human being... I am not talking about making a political ad about living with your mother in an attempt to SEEM more human, I am talking about reaching out in a different way... a way that is off the beaten path of politics... engage the people on a personal level...

Treating every "voter" as a human being... what a concept.

Reaching out to us means showing your soft underbelly... it is hard as a politician... but it is real. And that is what the people crave... real change, real ideas, real emotion, real heart, and real people... people from their own ranks... A candidate with something that the others are missing... the human element.

Thursday, August 23, 2007

Could the 2008 Dem nominee STILL be Al Gore?

"And the nominee is..."

The crowd hushes, Hillary is smiling in the wings... Obama is pacing the in the pews...

"Al Gore..."

A buzz instantly fills the room... was Al Gore even in the race? Hillary can be seen, red faced, yelling at her campaign manager... Obama is in tears as he thinks of all the political leaders he wont get the chance to insult.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This is not an actual situation, but an enactment of what could be the case during the Democratic Convention next year.

WHY? You ask... Well, The speculation of an Al Gore entry into the race is still afloat... and even Rasmussen, the most trusted name in polling, is predicting that regardless of the Clinton/Obama buzz, that the Democrats are going to pick a white male for their nominee. That leaves John Edwards and Al Gore.

What is better... Al Gore, without campaigning, is winning straw polls... The latest was the Scottsdale District 8 Straw Poll... It is no Ames, but voters had to pay $20 to cast a vote... and Gore walked away with the big win. He also came in second place to Edwards in the "popularity" vote. Clinton, Obama, and very far behind Richardson don't seem to have the support of the Central Arizona democrats... The same three don't really have the support in the Midwest, either... It is Edwards sweeping the middle-America crowds... which only means that if Al Gore enters the race, he will be the Democratic entity able to shake the Clinton foundation.

Speculation was that Gore would enter the race during the "save the earth" concert... but he didn't... With high numbers, high popularity, and the Democratic party secretly looking for the White Male candidate, the choice is Edwards or Gore. Recent speculation is that if gore's popularity and numbers continue to rise in the wake of the Draft Gore movement, December will be the kick-off of the Gore2008 campaign.

With political rivalries sizing up a Clinton nomination, throwing Al Gore into the mix could ruin the GOP strategy... (if I can figure out what that is, I will let you know). Remember, the GOP is planning to play the 51% "Definitely Will Not Vote Clinton" card VERY hard for the independents, as well as some of the Dems likely to jump ship. I know a few Dems who are in that category, and I don't blame them. There is a constant buzz in my community: "Anyone but Clinton"... and I think America Agrees.

So Al Gore... it looks like you may be getting the nomination after all...

GOP Candidates, be prepared for the shocker... just in case. Everyone else, keep your eyes on Florida!

God Bless.

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Democrats Debate... YouTube Style...

Last night, America watched as the much hyped CNN/YouTube debate unfolded... The first 5 minutes were used to discuss which videos were not chosen, and why, what the format was supposed to be, and to once again claim the debate's innovative nature.

I took notes during the entire debate... what was the question, who answered, and did I consider it a positive or a negative response (not down political lines, but rather in the candidates body language, knowledge of the topic, and comfort in talking "face to face" with the everyday American)

I am not going to go through my notes line by line, but I am going to hit a few highlights...

Anderson Cooper, the moderator, is OBVIOUSLY an Obama supporter. Cooper would direct general questions to the candidates, and for the first 35 minutes, Obama fielded twice as many questions as Hillary or Edwards... Mike Gravel fielded one question in the first 35 minute segment, and stopped the debate to complain about it... Cooper gave him more time later on... It took Cooper 20 minutes to FINALLY ask Bill Richardson a question... By that time Obama had answered three... In short, Cooper needs to determine a better way to distribute the questions... though by the third segment, he gave all the candidates 3-4 questions evenly... so he found his rhythm...

The questions covered the main-stream issues... but there were a few "dinner table" questions, and definitely a more personalized way of asking some of the mainstream questions... I appreciated the human-factor... as opposed to the Wolf Blitzer Robotic debate, where if you don't answer correctly Wolf will keep grilling you until you answer his question his way (like he did to Huckabee on creationism)... There were awkward moments like the candidates fielding question from snowmen... but in all, the idea was to keep the questions in a very YouTube-esque manner... It worked.

The winners? John Edwards did a great job challenging Obama and Clinton, and I think showed his compassion towards women's issues... and definitely out shined Clinton on the women's issues question. Gravel angrily came out against Clinton and Obama, using what little time he has left on the stage to make some deep wounds... and Biden almost made it into this category, right up until the end...

The losers? Biden... he had a lot of momentum, until he called the gun owner a mental wack-job just because he referred to his AR-15 as "his baby"... he even went as far as saying that the video submitter was most likely not mentally capable of owning his weapon, and suggested that he may be a danger to society... Mr Biden... The only danger is you, my friend. Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson really needed to break out, and they didn't. This may be the last debate with them in it. Richardson has one of the best messages on Energy Independence, but he just can't seem to be "interesting". Clinton yells... a lot! And it is really hard to think that she is a compassionate person when all she does is yell... strike-out in my book... Dennis Kucinch needed to shine, and this was supposed to be his format... he did alright, but it was just shy of being put in the winner's block... and the loserest loser of all the losers... Barack Hussein Obama... in any given answer there were 15-20 "Umm", "Uh", and other fumbles as he looked for the right thing... his inexperience was in full swing, and though his answers may have been on message, they lacked the ease and intelligence that our next president needs to have.

If I had to call it, I would say that we are looking at the fall of Clinton/Obama, and the rise of Edwards/Biden (but Biden needs to make ammends with the gun-owners of the world)... Perhaps Richardson is going to be a VP pick... so we may see Edwards/Richardson as the democratic ticket for the general election...

Though my question was not picked, the very first question was mine but asked by someone else... I am going to focus on submitting a few perfect videos for the Republican CNN/YouTube debate in September... Hopefully Huckabee is still in the running, and gaining more momentum!

God Bless!

Monday, June 4, 2007

Angry, Dark, and No Surprises

Political analysts Bill Schneider, James Carville, and J.C. Watts (all from CNN) have dubbed the 2nd Democratic Presidential debate as Angry, Dark, and without any surprises.

From Bill Richardson's bumbling to John Edwards' rant about Obama and Clinton not doing more to voice their discontent with the Iraq War, the debate seemed to be more of the same. The frontrunners are attempting to maintain their lead by keeping the status quo, while the tier two candidates are attacking them to get the headlines.

“They went quietly to the floor of the Senate, cast the right vote — but there is a difference between leadership and legislators,” Edwards said at the Democratic presidential debate in Manchester, New Hampshire. And Edwards is right. The two frontrunners are wavering on their "message". If you are against the war, come out strong against it... stand for something, instead of hiding behind a silent vote. If you want to be the next president, you MUST have substance... and this goes for candidates on both sides of the aisle!

In all, the debate and the candidates seem to be lacking two things: Content and a Message.

Biden and Edwards came out on top. But in all, the feel was that the Democratic field of candidates are angry, dark, and lacking a clear message - none of which make a good candidate to lead our country.

We need to hold our leaders to a higher standard.

So my message to the Democratic Leadership - Lose the anger! Try running a positive campaign where you attempt, however slightly, to rise to the higher ground. Challenge not just your opponents, but yourself, to clearly state their stance on the issues and use that stance to reach out to the people in a positive manner.

If you cannot, you are not fit to lead this great nation!


God Bless!