Category: politics

I love it that the President wants some ribs. I’m not one to deny a man his ribs, but could the President answer one question? What’s the point of posting it to the White House website when he says absolutely nothing of substance? Was it that Karl wasn’t there to give him the answers? One of the most disconcerting things about the President is his inability to answer a question off the top of his head without sounding like a chronic stutterer. Some of his biggest gaffes have come when he’s not reading froma script. If I were to vote for anyone in his Administration, it would be his speechwriter, who apparently is quite eloquent. The President? Not so much.

“Don’t feel bad about hootin’ and hollerin’. If I’d spent the amount of money you did in Iowa and only got 18%, I’d still be hootin’ and hollerin’ too. Don’t feel bad, Howard” — Al Sharpton to Howard Dean in tonight’s debate.

Sharpton, Kucinich and Lieberman should drop out of the race after this week, but Sharpton sure is entertaining to have in a debate. And yes, that statement had absolutely nothing to do with the question he was asked (and when he did get to the answer, it didn’t really relate to the question asked either).

Remember that little story about some secret DNC memos being leaked to the press because a Republican Senate Judiciary staffer go access to a Democratic staffer’s account? Well, apparently, it didn’t happen just once.

Yeah, I watched the State of the Union speech last night. It was… ummm… unimpressive. Nothing stuck out as revolutionary, cool, important or significant about it. It was actually really boring. Bush, again, smirks WAY too much for a President delivering a very important speech. He said so little, that the <a href=”fact check is pretty boring as well. Unfortunately, the Democrats looked like plastic dolls delivering the rebuttle. Holy crap. Someone tell Nancy Pelosi to blink! Tom Daschle was OK, but man, show some fire, people! They should have let Ted Kennedy offer the rebuttle. The rebuttle shored up my problem with the Democratic party – no freakin’ charisma. You don’t show up Mr. Cowboy with Ken and Barbie’s boring plastic parents. You beat him with fire, with determination – not wussified scolding. Grow some stones, you Jackasses.

Doc Searls has an absolutely beautiful eulogy for the Dean campaign. I’m pretty sure he doesn’t mean it that way, but that’s what it feels like. Through that post, I made my way over to The Cluetrain Manifesto, and was blown away. I get it now. I get why I was so enamored with the Dean organization. It wasn’t the candidate. It was the power of the people contributing to the organization. It was the way the campaign worked as a hub for ordinary people to make a difference. I was floored by the relatively small size of the average donation when compared to Bush’s enormous money-making machine. The campaign, and the internet side of it is a tiny glimpse of what’s possible. It is possible to take the monied corporations and special interests out of the game and win with ordinary people. I’m just not sure it’s possible for Howard Dean. If Dean doesn’t win, we should all thank him, Joe Trippi, and everyone who worked on the campaign for giving us a vision of the possibility that one day, it really will be a government of, for and by the people.

The Dean campaign, and to some extent the Clark campaign, have shown that you can express your opinions honestly in politics without wrapping it in plausible deniability and empty rhetoric. The shock to the system has been administered, and the things the press calls “gaffes” are actually a candidate speaking his mind, not the specious platitudes of some faceless collection of writers and spin merchants. I think Dean’s gotten away from that somewhat, and it’s hurting him. Like Cluetrain says about conversation “Conversations among human beings sound human. They are conducted in a human voice. “. Dean and Clark have both brought the human voice back to politics. Kerry and Edwards, to their credit, both realized this, and their campaigns have benefitted from it. Edwards, especially, has leaped on it, and done an outstanding job of jettisoning the politician’s vocabulary and speaking as himself. I watched a rally of his the other day, and was amazed at how natural he seemed compared to seeing him in the studio on The Daily Show last year.

Whatever happens with the Democratic nomination, I hope that the glimpses we’ve seen will be embraced. We should demand more honesty, more straight talk, more genuine opinion, from our candidates. Let’s not let them off with their prepared remarks. Make them squirm. If that had happened in 2000, I doubt we’d have the president we have today. I hope that the presidential debates this time don’t give the candidates the questions beforehand. The answers should be longer, and allow for a rebuttal. I really want to know what a candidate thinks, and in 2000, we didn’t get that. Hopefully, in 2004, we will.

I don’t suppose this means Gephardt will drop out soon? Kucinich? I’m about ready to winnow down the candidates and pick somebody. Of the top four (Kerry, Edwards, Dean and Clark), I’d honestly be OK with any of them. Here’s my fearless prediction: Gephardt drops out tomorrow, Lieberman and Kucinich both after New Hampshire. Like I know what I’m talking about…

nonDependant isn’t dead… yet. I’ve come back from the holidays now, and am posting over there again. If you visited before and stop, please go visit again. If you haven’t, please go check it out and see what we’re trying to do.

With the state of the debate (or lack thereof), I think creating a space where people can discuss issues, ask questions and help create answers without the furious name-calling of some of the other political communities is important. So, as we move into the heat of the 2004 campaign season, come on over and talk about the issues!

“What really teaches man is not experiences, but observation. It is observation that enables him to make use of the vastly greater experience of other men, of men taken in the mass. He learns by noting what happens to them. Confined to what happens to himself, he labors eternally under an insufficiency of data.” -\
H. L. Mencken

Found on Reid‘s very lovely quote bar.

As I hinted earlier in the week, I’m seriously considering switching candidates. I’ve been watching debates, subscribing to campaign blogs, reading stories and thinking. I’ve been doing a LOT of thinking. I came up with a list earlier in the fall, about the time we started up nonDependant, of things I thought about the race. Reading over it, I still think those things. Looking at the (now) 8 Democratic candidates, they fall into three categories:

• The Mavericks: Clark and Dean

• Old Washingon: Gephard, Kerry, Lieberman and Edwards

• Truth Wrapped in Comic Relief: Kucinich and Sharpton

We’ll start at the bottom. We all know that Kucinich, Sharpton and the recently departed Braun can’t win. The three of them, though, have had some of the funniest, best, and most pointed moments in the debates. Kucinich, although I disagree with him on a lot of his stands, especially Iraq, he still raises very well-thought out positions. Sharpton, again, don’t agree with him on a lot, and he has a lot of past to explain, has had some really nice moments in the debates. Braun running has been historic, but she’s never really made much of an impression. The trio has been entertaining, but I’m pretty sure it’s time for the other two members of the No Hope Club to drop out.

Old Washington has really pulled out the stops in this one. I almost feel bad lumping Edwards into this group, but he’s in Washington now, and that counts. Edwards is still a bit of an enigma to me, and I’ll be digging more up on him in the coming weeks (I have less than a month till our primary). The other three in this group have run traditional, by-the-rules, run-not-to-lose campaigns. They’ve been uninspiring, sniping, and petty. I’m extremely disappointed in the top three. Their relentless attacks on the front-runner have come across to me as petty and desperate. Their approach looks old and dated next to…

The Mavericks. Dean first, and then Clark, have captured my imagination. Neither have sold their soul to the Party; neither look to me to be beholden to anyone. This is a good thing. As liberal as Dean’s supporters are, he’s a fiscal conservative. He looks crazy next to the Old Washington set because he actually speaks the truth as he sees it and isn’t embarrassed by it. The same with Clark. Both have been lambasted by the other campaigns for their “gaffes” and “changing positions”, but I see that as men thinking about issues, and changing their minds as new information comes up. While Clark and Dean are vastly different in background, their level of grassroots support is not only impressive, it’s an inspiration to me. Comparing the percentage of donations under \$2000 is revealing as well. Almost 70% of Dean’s contributions are less than \$200, and almost 40% of Clark’s are (the data’s a few months old). The other graphs on that page are just as revealing. The Old Washington candidates are about even with President Bush, the king of the special interest, corporate donors. That means something to me. It means both Clark and Dean have the support of real people, and the candidates aren’t owned by PAC’s, corporations or other unsavory groups. Both seem to speak their conscience and reveal what they really think, which is risky, but I respect that.

Now, there is a lot at stake in this election. This isn’t just a referendum on a failed President. This is a campaign about the future of the political process. Like the television before it, the internet is revolutionizing the political process, evening the playing field and opening doors for candidates like Howard Dean and Wesley Clark. Candidates who found their base on the internet, and parlayed that base into mainstream exposure, and more support. It just makes sense. That others are following means that the internet is probably here to stay in politics. Now, how do we harness is and keep it from turning into the wasteland that television has become?

This also doesn’t explain who I’m voting for. Honestly, I still don’t know. Right now, it’s between Clark and Dean. I think Edwards is third, and Kerry is not that far behind. I have a few weeks left.

I was rolling through this whole thing. 17 Things You Don’t Know About Howard Dean is one of the funniest profiles I’ve ever read of a politician.