Superville Review

Well, well. Last night's debate for the Democratic Presidential potentials alerted me to a couple things. One, I'm not sure if a debate with eight candidates is the most effective means for all, but the top candidates to get their message out. Obama, Clinton and Edwards seem to dominate the proceedings, from questions to answers. Which leads to point number two. The limited chances for those candidates not seen at the top of news polls have to make their case in a sound bite or else.

Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel's position that the Democrat were more to blame for the Iraqi war than President Bush. This type of statement, while allowing the candidates to state firmly held beliefs and at the same time get "face time" could serve to undermine whichever Democratic nominee comes out of this process. Senator Clinton's tack of minimizing differences between the Democratic candidates while pointing out the disparity between the GOP and the Democrats is a sound one and one that Mr. Edwards and Senator Obama might employ in as insistant a way as Senator Clinton.

If the candidates at the low end of the media radar need to ravage those at the top, it will only damage the Democratic chances in a general election, strengthening a GOP which, at present time has no clear front runner. The small gang of GOP candidates participating in tomorrow night's debate face similar issues due to the size of the proceedings. No clear front runner has emerged and despite the emergence of Romney and McCain's steady hold on the public consciousness there are too many voices to get a strong sense of individual plans and belief.

So I propose a new paradigm in Presidential debating. Identify, through official polls and popular sentiment the top three candidates from each party, Democrat, Repubican, Green or Independent. All other candidates have debates to see who gets to the main stage. Of course there will be issues with fair access to media time and the like, however, it is far from fair for the American public to be given a smorgasboard of candidates that is high in calories, but low in value.

Labels: Barack Obama, Debate, Demorats, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Republican, Republicans

Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Presidential candidate John Edwards, has experienced a recurrence of the cancer she was first diagnosed with toward the close of the 2004 campaign. According to the New York Times, Mrs. Edwards' cancer is said to be incurable at this point, but manageable with treatment. This is sad news for the family, friends and supporters of the Edwards campaign on personal and political levels, but uncomfortable questions will no doubt be asked and theorized about in the coming days.

Candidate Edwards and his wife participated in a news conference earlier today that witnessed his assurance of a campaign that would not be derailed by the health of his wife. But with her illness returning and being called "incurable" how much focus can Candidate Edwards truly devote to a continued bid for the White House? Mrs. Edwards has been called a confidant of her husband. How much attention can she give to this effort that already sees her husband trailing Senator's Obama and Clinton in numerous opinion polls? The campaign to run the largest democracy in the world is a grind-house filled with pits, betrayals, reversals and competitive debating sessions that can turn mean spirited and outright cruel without warning.

There is much to like about Candidate Edwards, particularly his early strategies for universal health care, environmental corrections, and withdrawal from Iraq. But I don't know how believable it is to think his candidacy will not suffer due to an understandable need to be more concerned with Mrs. Edwards health. Mr. Edwards has already said that he will not suspend campaign activities due to Mrs. Edwards recurring cancer, but that statement comes after the candidate canceled a campaign appearance in Iowa to be at his wife's side.

Of course Mr. Edwards would put his wife first in this instance. Unfortunately, illness does not take into account ambitions or professional responsibilities. The Iowa cancellation might not be the last time Candidate Edwards needs to be by his wife's side and if he is not on the campaign trail battling Obama and Clinton, his candidacy will not succeed. They are too savvy, too charismatic and too popular to be threatened by a part time candidate. And Mrs. Edwards might be too ill to suffer a part time husband.

So the biggest question that needs to be asked and answered is this: should Mr. Edwards spend time on a campaign that might gain him the influence of the white house, but put more pressure on him and ultimately the health of his wife? We pray that Mr. and Mrs. Edwards choose the best answer for all involved.

Labels: Cancer, Elizabeth Edwards, John Edwards

Anne Coulter is the poster child for why anyone, who is not a white conservative,
cannot trust the Republican party in general and the conservative right "movement" specifically. She is a sarcastic, biting and seemingly intelligent woman who continues to display her lack of people skills and her ridiculously partisan bent everytime she opens her mouth. The latest foolishness you ask? I'll tell you: she being the strong man she aches to be, shouted out Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, making the same mistake one Isaiah Washington made at the Golden Globes, by referring to him as a slur typically directed at homosexual's.

Ms. Coulter says that she was just making a joke to her smitten audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference and even went as far as to say the Republican party is the party for gay people to allign themselves with. How did she conclude this? In a CNN article, Ms. Coulter says "I don't know why all gays aren't Republican. I think we have the pro-gay positions, which is anti-crime and for tax cuts. Gays make a lot of money and they're victims of crime. No, they are! They should be with us." Ms. Coulter is either out of her mind or a disengenous attention whore who is so in league with conservativism that she has lost her perspective about what people in general want, let alone the gay population. This "want" is known as respect. Anne Coulter has shown little for anyone. From the wives of 911 victims who she called out for milking their grief in demands for government accountablity in the terrorist attacks, and now her use of a bigoted euphimism that she should know better than to use.

Could it be that Ms. Coulter and her conservative audience are a bit too comfortable with the homogeny of self-righteousness that turned the house and senate over to the hated liberals during the fall elections and threatens to repossess the white house from the conservative agenda? The woman says she doesn't have anything against gay people. Maybe not. Or maybe she loves gay people like Strom Thurmond loved black Americans. The one thing Anne Coulter provides for her viewing audience is her love of her own voice. There is a pain deep in her loud mouth that lights up her eyes, but fails to warm the coldness that she chooses to use during interaction with those with opinions outside the conservative line. I'm here to tell you that she may be worse than the Mick Jagger that Carly Simon covertly sung onto the Billboard charts. Later for Mick because he has nothing on Anne Coulter; she's so vain.

Labels: Anne Coulter, Conservative Political Action Conference, Gay Slurs, John Edwards

Presidential Candidate John Edwards recently discovered the trial by fire nature of the blogosphere. Melissa McEwan and Amanda Marcotte, hired by Edwards' staff came under scrutiny from Catholics and conservatives who asserted McEwan and Marcotte's opinions on the Church's stand on abortion and homosexuality as being anti-catholic. The ladies have since apologized for any misconceptions as to their beliefs, holding that they are not anti-Catholic.

The bottom line truth in this equation is that in America people have opinions and technology has allowed a quick and accessible expression of a multitude of views that will almost always be offensive to one or more of the diverse groupings that make up American society. Free speech is the life's blood of a healthy democracy seeking to be functional in regard to resident participation. For democracy to be more than theory people must be involved in its dissemination. Period. While the Catholic church and other conservative groups have every right to take offense to the statements of bloggers, traditional journalist's or "others" in general, I don't know how much effectiveness their is in berating McEwan and Marcotte into an apology. It seems the more effective action to take is to utilize their free speech and educate people on the nature of the church's stance on the hot button issues that are always ready to polarize a free society.

I like what I've heard from Edwards up until now, but this blog-debacle has me looking at him sideways. One, any candidate has to know who his campaign staff is hiring to represent them; particularly when those hires are coming from a cyberspace that has a blog outpost on every domain way station. Two, an apology from his bloggers is fine, but the truth is their opinions are their opinions and they are entitled to them. Disagreement is also part of the life's blood of democracy. Perhaps an apology about the way McEwen and Marcotte stated their opinions could have been in order, but politics as usual, in other words, a forced apology from these bloggers should mean very little. America has never been in total agreement about anything and never will be. To get to the greatest good we need to be aware of the ways, means and evils that provide obstacles on the path to it. For that to happen we need people to speak freely. Even if we disagree.

Labels: Amanda Marcotte, Catholic Church, Conservatives, Democracy, Free Speech, John Edwards, Melissa McEwan

2007 is here, countdown to presidential election 2008 and I dare say
what is shaping up to be one of the most interesting presidential elections
in my young, but growing old, life. Citizens, there are no stand-ins for the parts we will play in this election. We must show up, on cue and off book. Everybody in, everybody in. This play will be legendary for its socio-political hidden meanings, intellectual spawings and political ideas as presented by an all-star cast.

Introducing the main players...

Hillary Clinton, the female candidate as villain, loved and hated equally by the elite and the regular jane's and Moe's from sea to shining sea; former first lady mired in health care,
real estate and infidelity scandals with a wildly popular husband known as Slick Will.

Barack Obama, the Hendrix-esque rock star who is charismatic, seen as "clean" in the regrettable words of Joe Biden. He's the innovator of political speak; in an age of politicking for points with style and little substance, Obama is the forthright candidate who no one has been able to pin down on the substance of his potential platform. If this were a 1970's comic he would be, The Black Candidate.

John Edwards, country boy politician with a core of steel, burnished in the shadows of Vice Presidential nomination in '04. Running as the candidate for the common man, he has already shocked the competition, putting forth a plan for universal health care for all Americans. He's the can-do man, but can he make it do what it do when it's time for votes to be counted and nominations won?

Joe Biden, as foot-in-mouth or the gaffe-man; undressing his chances before they even have an opportunity to catch the carriage that would have turned back into pumpkin further on the election trail. But every story needs a bumbler for comic relief.

John McCain, the tough talking centrist, running as a republican in this era of Republican as "right" and all the way to the "right." Will his support of more troops in Iraq rally the GOP throng to his cause or turn off a sizable segment of Americans Republican and Democrat who have come to see this war as the quicksand it has become?

Rudy Guiliani, former Mayor of New York, socially liberal, but so hard line in terms of policing and urban renewal during his reign over New York that the "Apple's" black and brown citizen's will tell you the man has no people skills. He has not officially declared, but it seems a matter of time. If he does win I won't leave my house in 50 states without I.D. and my hands in plain view.

Mitt Romney, flip-flopper. As Governor of Massachussetts, when it came to abortion, he was for a woman's right to choose, but since he's running for the GOP nomination, he's realized that he had a change of heart. Who is his campaign advisor, John Kerry?

Truthfully, I'm looking forward to seeing if an independent candidate can present enough votes to be blamed for losing another election for the Democratic or Republican candidates. This country needs an infusion outside the main stream. Obama, could be that, to a degree, but is America ready for a black president or what about a woman president? A Republican president who is occupying the same center Democrats tried to occupy in the 2000 and 2004? Will the Democrats willingly return to their roots on the left and be unapologetic in doing so? How many of her issues will America confront in regards to race, gender and class? There is no room on the fence in '08. Stakes are high, war is stuck in netural in Iraq, a conflict with Iran is being courted by "W", global warming is starting to get the world hot under the collar and terrorism and it's various ways and means are as much a threat today as it was after 9/11.

This country of ours is about to change course in ways that will prove historic and possibly transcendent or tragic. Which outcome Americans see will be determined by the effort everyone of her citizens is willing to contribute in this electoral process. Everyone has a part to play in this production. No American can, in good conscience, sit this election out. With so much on the line and a variety of candidates that have not been seen before (a black man and a female with a legitimate chance for success and Republicans who could be called moderates.) it's imperative that each candidate is researched, given audience, and challenged, not followed down party lines, racial lines, gender lines, or other. This election is about the policy and the plan. Fellow citizens, let's go to work.

Labels: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Presidential Election 2008, Rudolph Guiliani