Too bad alternative/progressive media (aka "the real press") aren't considered mainstream for America. If they were, recent newspaper issues and newscasts would lead off about the Iraqi civil war, how the Bushites plan to nuke Iran and the idea that a construction project in one of the Middle East's holiest sites could – just could - trigger something resembling Armageddon.
But noooo. Simple-minded corporate dupes - obsessed with glamour, style and the 15-second sound bite – drive America's insatiable hunger for not objective information, but "sexy crap" – things that you're guilty about wanting to know but won't contribute richly to your life. You know, things like how a pumped-up ex-Playboy bunny intrigues people even more so in death than she did in life. Or the latest "when domestic animals attack" incident.
Or why Barack Obama isn't "black enough." Yep, you read right. That's a headline from Yahoo news. The most trusted name in, umm, something.
That's what we've come to, folks. It isn't necessarily important to CNN that Obama announced his presidential candidacy in Abe Lincoln's hometown – one of a handful of African-Americans ever to run for the top office in the land. It isn't crucial to Faux, er, Fox News that Obama has some compelling ideas on running the country.
Instead, for corporate media, the most critical issues are whether people can spell Barack Obama. Or whether he's "black enough." Whatever that means. Or that the Australian prime minister, who takes his "war on terror" lead from Dubya and that wonderful failure known as Tony Blair, can criticize a presidential candidate a few days into his campaign.
In this crazed punditocracy where style and petty past matters rule over substance, experience and future potential, it will be difficult to extract crucial information from media about the 2008 race for the White House. My closest friends and colleagues know I'm a political junkie. I must admit it will be a fun adventure to follow the adventures of various individuals aspiring to be the next leader of the semi-free world.
I'd love to throw my hat into the candidate's ring, even with the mere hope of perpetuating something akin to a progressive/common sense agenda for the country. My only obstacles are (a) nobody outside my sphere influence knows of my existence; (b) I lack public administration and political experience; (c) I'm short several million dollars in campaign funds and (d) I'm not yet of age to run for that office. I'd have to wait for 2012, but as you know the Mayan calendar "expires" that December. So it could very well be like "hey, I'm running for president, but I wouldn't get to the inauguration because we all might be dead by then."
Therefore, let us concentrate on the field of candidates for 2008. According to Politics1.com, the Republicans have to look forward to U.S. Senator Sam Brownback (Kansas); former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore; former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani; former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee; California Congressman Duncan Hunter; U.S. Senator John McCain (Arizona); Texas Congressman Ron Paul; ex- Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney; Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo and ex-Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson. Those are current sure bets.
Rumors still abound about former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel, former N.Y. Governor George Pataki and even – get a load of this crap – conservative radio loudmouth Michael Savage crowding the field.
For folks like Brownback, Gilmore, Huckabee, Romney and Hunter, I'd ask for your sake – do Americans even care who the hell you are? Hello, in order to even run for president, don't just run for the sake of running. Run with some name recognition. Outside your own congressional district or state, that is. I know – unfortunately – of Paul because he's a Texas and acts more of a nutty libertarian. And sure, we know of Tancredo's anti-immigrant rants. Heck, I know about Savage – mainly because he's a racist, sexist, xenophobic and homophobic. But you knew that already. (Maybe we should just give Savage and Tancredo their own countries to live in and be done with it.) Too bad we won't have good ol' Jebby, Condi, George Allen or Rick Santorum to kick around for this race.
The Democrats currently are pondering … well, there's more than Hillary and Obama. There are Delaware Senator Joe Biden, Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Dennis Kuncinich, ex-Alaska Senator Mike Gravel and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson.
Gravel, Biden, Dodd, Vilsack – all decent guys. But again, people gotta know ya. Sure, Edwards and Kuncinich each has a well meaning agenda and support base. But is that base and agenda big enough to lure independents and, dare I say, Republicans? At least ex-Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack had the sense to leave the race as nobody outside Iowa knows his idenity.
Which leave me with Hillary and Obama. Here's a thought: PLEASE do not let major name recognition and visibility alone determine the fate of the Democratic nomination. Hillary and Obama are like rock stars in the Democratic Party, but that alone can't be allowed to see which two fight for the nomination, leaving others to the irrelevant pile.
I agree with Hillary and Obama on many issues. Hillary is experience, astute politically, intelligent (smarter than Bill in many ways) and respectable. Obama is charismatic, likeable and idealistic. But Hillary is better suited to serve in the Senate or even in a governor's position. Obama, for the time being, needs to serve out his full FIRST Senate term and see where he stands then.
And I don't need to explain the HUGE amount of baggage and stigma that the mere name Hillary Clinton carries. Right-wing America, for all of its hypocrisy and negativity, will never tolerate her. Then there is that Iraq issue. As for Obama, that rock-star status drives his candidacy. Barack – if you're listening – wait 'till 2012.
Who am I left with as a preference? There is Richardson, with whom I share a heritage (Hispanic). He has on the face of it a good nature, popularity as a governor and experience from the Clinton administration and familiar with foreign policy. Okay, there was his struggle with the Wen-Ho Lee tragedy and few other things. But he deserves merit as a major candidate.
And do does one of the (currently) unannounced individuals, retired General Wes Clark. Yeah, I know. Some Demos mistrust his Democratic credentials. And he got off a poor start to his '04 campaign. But I see it this way: Here's a respected former military commander who opted to go blue rather than red, trashes the Bushites on foreign policy and developed a political action committee. Someone who could have wiped Dubya all over the wall in the '04 presidential debates. Someone who has the credentials in this "war on tarruh" (as Shrub pronounces it) era. Someone who could lure the swing votes needed from conservatives and moderates. I voted for him in the '04 primary and could easily go for him again next year. Do it, Wes. I did spend some money to create a bumper sticker backing you, after all.
But these are just my opinions. I realize most of you see differently. I'll give additional takes as time goes along in the campaign and the candidate fields evolve (even for the third party and minor candidates – the latter individuals provide plenty of comical fodder).
P.S. Anna Nicole isn't dead. She's just taken up "residence" with many other famous "deceased" celebrities like JFK, Marilyn Monroe, Jim Morrison, 2Pac, Biggie Smalls and Kurt Cobain.
