As it turns out, Ron Paul is not the man. No one cares about his silly rants. Even more, no one wants a candidate that is physically incapable of smiling.

Ron Paul is the Man! He will get the federal government off our backs and let us live… and bring home the troops ASAP.

Let’s dispense with the idea that the Democrats need a candidate who will beat the Repubicans so therefore pick Hillary. The latest Zogby poll disproves that one. She doesn’t beat one Republican candidate. And look at the Republican herd, rapidly reorganizing itself on a daily basis. So who is there to beat? One day it’s Rudy, the next day Huckabee. And then, who? Bloomberg? The Republicans are in turmoil and this is the Democrats election to lose.

This great reliance on polls so early in the game has harmed the process. People have been picking who they thought could win, such as Hillary, before picking a true leader who would be good for the country.

As far as a study regarding neg./pos. treatment of candidates, there is difficulty measuring subtle favoritism, such as has been granted Hillary by the media (the Register and Guardian endorsements), including, Wolf Blitzer, Chris Matthews, and CNN as a whole, Kevin Drum of Washington Monthly, Joan Walsh of Salon and many of their writers, etc. You could say the negative stories are simply a way of balancing the corporate patronage already shown to Hillary, especially the polls that have been tailored first and foremost for name recognition, e.g Who would you vote for today if you were selecting a Democrat? Hillary jumped out ahead simply because the masses weren’t as familiar with any other candidate. Besides, who pays as much attention to the negative stories as to the polls? If the negative stories were effective in shaping views then how is it Hillary supposedly has a commanding lead on the national level, yet is the least qualified, and yes, the least experienced candidate in the pack?

Hillary, by far received the most air time at each respective debate, which countered any negative press she may have or may not have been given.

It’s amazing to see the extent that Hillary apologists will go to further their candidate, when she has never once voted against war, hasn’t offered specifics about when she would end the Iraqi war, isn’t willing to pull out entirely from Iraq like her opponents, and sable rattled against Iran, setting the stage for WWIII.

Iowans, please do the rest of America an enormous favor and don’t vote for Hillary.

While I understand and respect your views I have two ‘problems.’ For one, the ’system’ we’re using has been in place for over 100 years. It’s the system that gave us Lincoln and a couple of Roosevelts. It’s been serving up some crap of late, but I don’t think it’s the fault of the system.

Moreover, going to a single primary, as you propose, would simply reverse the existing situation and put all the ‘power’ in the big states. If all 50 states were voting the same day, you would see all the candidates focus on CA, NY, TX and IL. Perhaps that appeals to your notion of majority rules, but it is no more ‘democracy’ than what we have presently. Even if a candidate wanted to visit all the states prior to the primary, where would they get the staff and the money? This plan would likely open up the process to more people, as is suggested, but if you have twenty candidates from each party running all over the country, who will staff them? Only the top tier will have the pros and afford the $$$ for advertising.

It might be a ‘better’ system, but the potential for chaos exists. I’m not familiar with the primary process now, but isn’t it possible for one candidate to concede and throw his/her delegates to another? If that’s the case, if I’m a party boss, I’ll flood the system with ‘proxies’ who would turn over their votes to my guy later. If my assumption about delegate ‘sharing’ is correct, this opens up the potential for a lot of seedy, back-room deals.

In the final analysis, wouldn’t some tweaking to the current system and some meaningful campaign reform be adequate?

Barring a complete dismantling of political parties, I would like to see one nationwide general election for every candidate that threw their hats in the ring. Instead of having nationwide primaries staggered out for 3 or 4 months. It’s BS that “nonviable” candidates rarely if ever get a chance to get the party nomination, because they simply don’t follow the party line. Let every American decide who is viable or not.

In the best case scenario, I think we should be utilizing all that the information age has to offer in order to draw the largest number of people into the democratic process as possible. This is probably one of the best ways we can restore some sense of legitimacy to American politics in my opinion. By the time that most Americans get around to thinking about who they will vote for, they are left with the Coke/Pepsi quasi-choice. Not only does this erode the public’s belief that politicians are actually representative of the electorate that sends them to office, ‘Coke versus Pepsi’ is divisive; and I believe it is ultimately leading to irreconcileable differences. While I recognize the strengths of your argument. I too respectfully disagree.

Shifter,

Perhaps. It’s impossible to predict the dynamics of change. The effect could be as you say or as I. Or something entirely different. I respectfully disagree, however, that the party power would be mitigated in your scenario. I believe the public to be apathetic and deferential when it comes to politics. At least on the national level.

The Clinton camp has recently charged their candidate is being held to a higher standard than the rest of the field, and Ms. Clinton may have point. In a study recently released by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, coverage of the 2008 Presidential Campaign “in the early months of the 2008 presidential campaign, … had already winnowed the race to mostly five candidates and offered Americans relatively little information about their records or what they would do if elected”, according to the comprehensive review of election coverage across the media.

“The press also gave some candidates measurably more favorable coverage than others. Democrat Barack Obama, the junior Senator from Illinois, enjoyed by far the most positive treatment of the major candidates during the first five months of the year?followed closely by Fred Thompson, the actor who at the time was only considering running”, the study continued.

“Meanwhile, the tone of coverage of the two party front runners, New York Senator Hillary Clinton and former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, was virtually identical, and more negative than positive”, according to the study.

In all, 63% of the campaign stories focused on political and tactical aspects of the campaign. That is nearly four times the number of stories about the personal backgrounds of the candidates (17%)or the candidates’ ideas and policy proposals (15%). And just 1% of stories examined the candidates’records or past public performance”, the study found.

TONE OF COVERAGE

Percent of All Stories

Positive Negative

Hillary Clinton 26.9 37.8

Barack Obama 46.7 15.8

Rudy Giuliani 27.8 37.0

John McCain 12.4 47.9

Perhaps this is why we ‘ve found a collision of “chilled sensuality and violent hilarity”.

Clint,

If there was a single primary, how could Huckabee afford to campaign in all 50 states?

Obama continues to be athreat to national maturity.

Rookie freshman Obama with his big ego and little experence, continues his up hill struggle for the democratic nomination.

We all know only Edwards or Clinton can beat republicans.

Obama continues to be athreat to national maturity.

Rookie freshman Obama with his big ego and little experence, continues his up hill struggle for the democratic nomination.

We all know only Edwards or Clinton can beat republicans.

Dirty Dennis,

You’re right in that finance reform would have to go along with a national primary day, but if that were the case then each state should vote on the same day-no Iowans or New Hampshirites first and second.

One of the problems of our electoral college is that it affords a ridiculous amount of influence to small, underpopulated states. Putting Iowa and New Hampshire first in the primary season is an example of the same thing. Democracy is all about majority rule; how does that square with giving a minority vote greater power in a national election? Put another way, why should the unique concerns of Iowans and New Hampshire voters be worth more than those of California, Texas or New York?

Money is obviously a problem, but it’s a problem now with the current system too. That means it doesn’t have much bearing on whether a “national primary day” is a good idea or not.

My voting/donation priorities are simple: Paul, then Kucinich. It’s a pretty easy decision for me. Research cuts through rhetoric and I will vote with confidence that I am making a reasonably informed decision. There are a few candidates that I could tolerate, but I expect the race to go to Hillary vs Rudy. I should have lost hope for this country by now but I am reminded that we had a similar surge of bad government in the late 1800s as well. We survived that and flourished for a while before again losing ground in 1910. I’m not giving up just yet.

I just love how its OK for our host to use dirty words but not us.
Tim, least you could do is give us a solid explanation of the rationale behind the RS-NA censorship policies.

Shifter,

If multiply the current spending by a factor of 25 or so, then you’d be in the ballpark as to what a ‘blanket primary’ would run into.

Moreover, the small-fry (Huck, Paul, Thompson, Dodd, Richardson and some of the dearly departed) would even try. It would pretty much boil down to what the parties wanted. Not that that’s NOT the case right now.

But both Carter and Clinton were not the chosen ones and it was through their showing in IA/NH that they got a chance and parlayed it into victory.

Public financing would definitely level the playing field but I still think having one or two small states serve as the staging ground has merit.

As for IA/NH, it’s a double-edged sword. They’re experience in this whole business and don’t seem impressed by celebrity status. On the flip-side, they may be jaded.

Prez elections are based more on tradition than anything and I think the current system has that.

There are ENORMOUS problems in how we choose our Prez. I don’t think this is one.

Yep, Iowa having the first crack at this is outrageous, not to mention archaic. It would have been great to see where this grab bag of candidates would have chosen to spend their money, without this system in place. ‘Bazilion $$$$’ are already being spent in these markets. Would openning the first-round up to the rest of the nation really induce an significantly greater frenzy of political fundraising?

Predictions for Iowa:

Mcain wears his American flag lapel pin UPSIDE DOWN (without explaining why).

Huckabee plays the bass at his victory celebration (wearing sunglasses for the right touch of babyboomer cachet).

Thompson oversleeps and misses the whole thing.

Romney sheds a tear.

Edwards slaps a heckler.

Hillary eats too many chicken wings and looks disgustingly bloated during her victory speach.

Obama makes a comment about Bill Clinton and interns.

Clint,

If we had one primary all over the country, I doubt if Huck would do so well. The IA/NH primaries/caucas allows candidates a chance to get their message out without having to spend a bazillion $$$$. If there was a single primary across the nation, only the party favorites need apply.

Public campaign financing would help that considerably, but the real issue is by having one or two small states ‘host’ the start-up, it gives everyone an opportunity to size up various candidates.

It’s really not a bad system

I dream of an Obama Huckabee matchup.

But for my money I’d bet on Hillary vs. Guliani. Hillary’s still inevitable and Guliani’s got a good chance at Florida which would “make” him in presidential terms. Pun intended.

Also, the fact that Iowa gets first crack at deciding whose president of the U.S. is b.s. The primaries for every state should be held on the same day. Who is Iowa to have so much say in determining who becomes president? What kind of sense does that make?

bk: Nice try my friend. Unfortunately, you’re right in front of ‘middle america’. The type of voter you just described in your stepfather, is the type of person who calls themself a ‘values voter’. It’s all part of the conservative philosophy. It, ultimately, breaks down to ‘conserving’ what’s left of the original ‘America’….which is white, male dominance in the political/religious arena. Think of the word conservative for a minute. Conserve what? Conserve money? Values? Rules? Laws? What, exactly are they conserving? Isn’t the human race supposed to be about evolving?

Just some more thoughts not sponsored by oil, gas, coal, tobacco, alcohol, pharma, or auto……

according to my step father the Episcopal minister, lawyer and retired vietnam vet/army colonel/pentagon employee:

“Anyone but Hillary”

Then he acted like his hearing aid was shut off when I started doing my Kucinich speech. I tried!

Tim,

How many of those Iowa folks would you imagine have gotten to the point where they tell pollsters any old thing, just to play games with them? Not much else to do out there awinter.

Hasbeen,

And just what IS the difference? Besides gender, race and age?

And are you okay with Obama ‘hinting’ that if he didn’t win Iowa he wouldn’t run? Is that the petulance of youth or the cynicism of maturity at work?

So, we have Prez Obama getting upset at Congress ’cause they won’t pass his budget and he says, “You don’t pass my budget and I’m going home.”

If Hil said that there’d be SUCH a hew and cry.

News Break!! There is NO difference between any of the candidates. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be running. Okay, sans Rudy that formula works.

With all due respect, someone who can’t see a marked difference between those two candidates and who can be swayed that easily by the equivalent of a bribe wasn’t a very informed voter in the first place.

And those are the ones who elected George W. Bush.

With all due respect, someone who can’t see a marked difference between those two candidates and who can be swayed that easily by the equivalent of a bribe wasn’t a very informed voter in the first place.

and those are the ones who elected Gorege W. Bush.