The ultimate compromise:

More political musings from your friendly webmaster, so feel free to ignore if you don't care much about politics.

The Democratic nomination race enters its umpteenth week. It's nuts and crazy how many people are getting bent out of shape in this process, which is an absolute shame. My own position is a fairly simple one. Barack Obama first, John McCain second, Hillary Clinton last. This is because I admire Obama's policies and his experiences and feel that he is the best representative of the people that we could hope for as President. The second part is not so much an endorsement of McCain, but a repudiation of Hillary Clinton; I feel that she is a liar, that her character is such that she will continue to issue promise after promise and not follow through, and that she will not only continue the current "money for influence" politics that already happen in Washington, that they will only get worse and far harder to stop.

I would not be surprised if there are Clinton backers in the audience right now, and I wouldn't be surprised if they are unhappy with my opinions. I'm seriously not here to try to convert anyone to my position today, but to extend an olive leaf (much like I would believe Obama would if it was a possibility). After all, Obama's and Clinton's stated policies are rather the same. And unfortuntately, one of the two has to win -- and that is the problem. I hear more and more that Clinton supporters do not want to vote for Obama just like I wouldn't want to vote for Clinton.

So, how about a compromise -- John Edwards for President?

Compromise candidates used to happen all of the time. Just take a gander at conventions which happened before 1950. The primary process is a process that was created to give citizens a more-balanced say in what happens, but ultimately we are dealing with what is a private organization, the Democratic Party, who makes their own rules and everything.

Edwards has already attempted to run earlier anyway. He has many of the same policies that Obama and Hillary has. And if what I'm hearing is correct, that race and gender do not matter, then I can't imagine that his race or gender should matter either.

There's just been too many bridges burnt in this process. Clinton has alienated many Obama supporters by saying that they "don't matter" and Obama has certainly raised questions about his ability to lead and his experience to Clinton's supporters. I would not be surprised to see that both candidates have passed through the point of no return, especially with a Republican candidate that has shown his ability to capture Independent voters.

While Edwards would be my first choice, especially since he was running a modestly successful campaign, there's always Richardson, or Biden, or other Democrats that the compromise could settle on. While I understand it would likely be a disappointment to the hardcore partisans of either candidate, both candidates would probably feel that they have to bow to the party in this way (as the Democratic Party still provides access and other needed services) and it would reestablish the Party's ability to control what is going on and not have it completely ripped apart in the process.

Ultimately, compromise has to happen though; one set of people have to compromise whether they want to or not. It should not be this way. Hillary's supporters should be able to point to specific parts of her platform that they feel is important, Obama's can do the same, and the compromise candidate can be rid of the baggage of the last four months of hard-core campaigning, attacks, and other needless and unnecessary shenanigans that have happened in the Democratic primaries and caucuses.

In summation: Edwards for Democratic President 2008!

New Update - completely politics- and opinion-free!

Hey again folks,

Megane 6.7 and I have another MSTing going at a pretty good clip. We have just completed the first draft riffthrough and will be editing for the next little bit.

There's not exactly a timeframe plotted for release, but it's certainly sooner than it was three months ago.

It seems like it'll be a pretty good MSTing. Dammit... just gave an opinion. Oh well, vote Dan Grice, Green Party, for MP for the Vancouver Quadra riding's by-election!

As always, your completely-biased blogger,
---"Z"

A new feature for this blog....

which will probably open me up to non-interest, bickering, non-agreeance, and the possible alienation of many (any) fans...

It's time for the 2008 U.S. Presidential election!

Today's installment is actually three miniature rants designed to get a few things off my chest. Nothing more, nothing less... please feel free to contribute to the (lack of) noise if you agree or disagree.

1) Media involvement in elections.

This is really troubling, for many reasons. There have been many debates already presented in this election cycle for the candidates, but I have a couple comments about debates which have already happened.

Firstly, the Nevada debates... why was Dennis Kucinich disinvited? According to NBC, he hadn't received enough support. Well, it seems more and more clear to me that a candidate's visibility *in the press* is what dictates whether or not people will support them. Kucinich was actually invited to this debate to begin with, but NBC pulled the invite at the eleventh hour.

The one fascinating thing I find about our political process is that the support that a candidate could get can certainly influence the remaining candidates into accepting planks of their platform. Unfortunately, the way that the media is now increasingly shutting out other voices and only broadcasting one or two. I cannot quite tell if this is a cost-cutting decision, a matter of laziness, or if these mass-media outlets are deliberately trying to control the message, but it is reprehensible in all three cases considering the public is supposed to be served by these companies.

John Edwards is now running into the same issue. The Democrats do seem to have similar messages, and if Edwards had a different message that was head-and-shoulders above the other candidates, he may have a better chance to get more media time. On the other hand, it seems rather apparent that the media is following Obama and the Clintons and shutting Edwards out, despite the simliarity of all of their messages. It's a mighty shame... clearly, this man is still garnering some support, and he should still be able to broadcast his message. But because the media has decided he is not the story anymore, they've refused to cover him as extensively.

I can hear the conservatives now... "No, their job is to make money!" You're entitled to that opinion, but the FCC has also charged the media with informing the public as well... this is why they are allowed to use the public airwaves. Maybe additional, and better, coverage would be in the media's best interests too, as only through multiple voices can this country be governed best?

And don't worry, Republicans, I didn't forget you too. I remember reading in the Detroit Free Press that the editorial staff has endorsed a candidate... John McCain. That's fine, I suppose, but I wonder... does anyone else see this as a rather egregious conflict of interest? I understand that the editorial page is supposed to be separate from the news page and that the editorial page is the only place where opinions can be printed. On the other hand, if the editors are specifically backing one candidate, does that mean that the rest of the paper skews in that direction too? Would it not be better to say, "Editor Smith, from Times Tribune, endorses John McCain" so as to not encompass the whole paper with an opinion?

An unbiased and diligent media is desperately needed in this country, especially after eight years of Bush (and I could even make the argument to add eight years of Clinton plus another four of Bush I.) Unfortunately, we don't seem to have one. Check out this link to read in Kucinich's own words about his exclusion from the Nevada debates. You may scoff at some of his ideas and think that he's talking of conspiracies, but I at least feel that there is some conflict of interest going on.

Which brings us to the next point.

2) Money in Politics.

There's way too much of it. It seems that the only way that candidates get on the air is to buy time, costing a lot of money, or by accepting money from media companies and thereby becoming compromised with regards to their future actions (such as to the FCC). I know that this has been said before, but I sincerely believe that the presidential campaign (and for that matter, many other federal campaigns down to representative) should be run on a public money trust basis.

The FCC has chartered networks and broadcast television as well as radio, and is a ready governor to provide equal time to candidates. The candidates themselves should have an equal opportunity to speak their message, instead of having thousands of dollars drown out others' voices. There are extremely smart people in this world who don't have the money or access to have their words broadcast. While the Internet certainly has changed communications (for the better), this is still an old-fashioned process with regards to media and it will be for a long time to come.

Abuses with money lead me to point 3.

3) Falsehoods and Intentional Misleading.

Dammit, it's "LYING". I hate politicians for bringing the above two words into our lexicon. I rant on one specific cause, but every last candidate seems to be guilty of this.

A radio ad was released in South Carolina prior to the Democratic primary. In this ad, Barack Obama had a quote taken completely out of context and spun to say the absolute opposite of his meaning. I do not subscribe to the thought that all people are morons who readily believe the first thing that they hear, but spreading disinformation is also difficult to overcome.

A personal story; recently, while at a company function, I was taking the last donut from the box and searching for a plate to put it on. Immediately, I was jumped on by a coworker who accused me of being the person who kept leaving empty boxes around the lunchroom. It was as far from the truth as possible; I do try to keep public areas clean, especially in that situation. But because the conclusion was jumped to and the initial falsehood spread, and since it was the first message that other coworkers heard, I was labeled unfairly and had no opportunity to defend myself.

Of course, there is an opposite effect of having blatantly untrue allegations be a detriment... if people saw me as I cleaned the lunchroom, they wouldn't believe what my coworker said and would have thought (rightly so) that she was jumping to conclusions. In this day and age though, when no politician seems to be held accountable for all the campaign statements produced from their headquarters, there is very little risk to having untrue allegations boomerang back to you, and the attack ad still runs strong due to this idiocy. And unfortunately, in the court of public opinion, it is often either the loudest or the first voice which is believed rather than the true voice.

The greater point is this: the American people have been living on a steady diet of lies and falsehoods from the Bush administration. Can we please have a press which challenges our public figures to explain themselves and holds them accountable when this stuff happens instead of just blowing it off? I don't really care if a President decides that they have been looking at the wrong side of an issue one day; people grow and change, and the world at large changes too. But if they cannot have the integrity to make sure that the things they say are true, then I feel very badly for our political process.

I really don't know why I expect anything to change, but on the other hand I don't believe any ever has changed unless someone takes action or at least says something. Cynicism has its place... the front page of this blog's hosting, for instance.... but it took one voice to point out that the emperor had no clothes too.

In other news, Megane and I are in process of working on another MSTing. Hope you guys liked the last one and that you'll like the next!