IF AL GORE IS SERIOUS

Let’s start with a reality check: Al Gore is not going to win the presidency in 2008. He will not be able to get organized, raise enough money, or campaign fast enough to make a dent in the front-loaded primaries, and he’s certainly not going to enter the fray as a 3rd party candidate. The question should be: does Gore ever run for public office again? His eventual answer to that will tell you whether he’s really in it for public service or for ego.

Forget personal prejudices about Gore’s ability (or lack thereof) to often walk the walk he talks, or what his real purpose was about agreeing to make “An Inconvenient Truth.” He has still been an important part of raising the consciousness in this country about climate change, and has caused the debate to intensify. If he is truly interested in serving the public and effecting a change, then he needs to continue to make his case as Al Gore, Private Concerned Citizen. But if this is just a ploy to re-make himself politically, then he’s not interested in public service at all, but power.

I don’t know the answer here. Gore has always championed environmental protection as his #1 cause, and that makes you want to believe that he’s really in it to educate the country and make a difference. But if you watch his movie with a critical eye, you don’t just gloss over all the references to the 2000 election. Instead, you wonder why it’s included. After all, if this is about raising consciousness on what we’re doing to the planet, who cares about how you lost the election?

That is the dichotomy with Al Gore, and why a lot of people struggle with or discount what he stands for, or what he purports to stand for. If you’re really in this for environmental change, why do you try to show how “unfair” the 2000 election was to you? And if the environment is that fragile, why do you live your extremely environmentally abusive lifestyle and think that by buying “carbon credits” you can excuse your behavior?

See, this is the problem with career politicians. They think they’re above the fray, and they think they’re entitled to positions of privilege. Hey…I’m an agoraphobic person who has partially been rewarded by a lifetime of being on stage instead of down with “the rabble.” So on some level I understand. The difference is that I’m not in a position to make policy. I’m just saying that whatever you see Al Gore do in the future with respect to seeking public office should tell you a great deal about his true motivations.

WATCH THE BELT BUCKLE

There are lots of pundits, both amateur and professional, making all sorts of predictions about the 2008 presidential race. I'm no different in that regard. And, we all probably think we see things that allow us to draw conclusions that may or may not have any shred of reality to them by the time the election rolls around. However...

...when I was a wee lad, my father tried to teach me to football. He did at least succeed in giving me a love for the sport that I have for no other, not even the ones I actually did play well (like tennis or track). An unintended consequence was that a phrase he gave me while trying to show me the intracicies of defending and tackling in the open field became a great life lesson:

"Randy, watch the belt buckle."

This meant that a receiver or a running back would always try to fake you out before moving in the direction they were actually going to go. Their hands might flail, their head might pivot, their shoulders might juke, they might step one way and cut another. But the belt buckle would never move anywhere but where the body was actually going to go.

This same philosophy holds true for life, including politics. We're going to be told all sorts of things: Hillary's got lots of money, Obama's got the buzz, Giuliani's too abrasive, McCain has the support of party insiders, on and on and on. What's really going on?

Watch the belt buckle.

In this case, "the belt buckle" is the actual direction that someone's campaign is going, or the personal effect and perception they have with the electorate.

We'll be told that Elizabeth Edward's cancer will give John Edwards some sympathetic attention. Does it give him a shot? Watch the belt buckle. I see a man who still polls very high negative numbers, and compared to the other "front runners" he's not having much luck building a war chest even though he's been running for president since he came to the Senate in 1998. He's going to the turf for a loss of 3 yards.

We'll be told how much money Hillary Clinton has raised, how Bill will give her a boost, and how great of a campaigner she is. Does she get the Democratic nomination? Watch the belt buckle. Hillary's negatives are over 50% in some polls. Even in the more favorable polls her "won't vote for her no matter what" numbers are in the high 30s. Essentially, she's juking and spinning, and she might spin down the field for a few yards. But she has little chance to get to the end zone.

I don't want to overuse the football analogy because that's not really the point. What IS the point is to not be swayed by your own personal feelings or anyone else's for a candidate. Nor should you be swayed by the story-of-the-moment, or some minor jump or drop in the polls.

So when you see that the media is already trying to pile on Giuliani, yet his positive numbers rise while his negative numbers fall, the media is trying to juke you. When Fred Thompson hasn't even "taken off from the line of scrimmage" and people are trying to put him in the White House (Wesley Clark kind of comes to mind), you might want to see how well he runs down the field first. When John McCain is the supposed "chosen guy" of the Republican Party, but he's being caught handily from behind...well, you get the idea.

Watch the belt buckle.

By the way, Obama's got 70 yards of open field with only two defenders to beat, and one of them's turned the wrong way....

Republican straw poll

There's another blog I visit frequently, and they're conducting a straw poll of the Republican candidates. (You don't have to be a Republican to participate.) It might be interesting to see where it leads.

Go here to vote: http://presidentialpolitic.blogspot.com

Mashing Up Hillary...or Who's Afraid of Barack?

So how many still think Hillary's got a chance in hell to win the Democratic nomination? She's definitely making the news...as the butt of a very clever joke in the mashup of the 1984 Apple commercial...and it doesn't help her cause. (NOTE: For the 5 people in the country that may not have seen the ad, here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo )

Just for fun, turn this attack ad around and say it had been done by an HRC supporter attacking Obama, perhaps showing that he's idealistic and really doesn't understand the complexity of the issues, but he's got everyone mezmerized. Just react, don't think: you would see it as mean, spiteful and totally uncalled for, right? But in its present form you say "Wow, that's powerful." Know why? Because in the gut of most Americans they believe that HRC is a grasping, power-hungry person who might do or say anything in her pursuit of the presidency. Obama, on the other hand, is seen as a trustworthy person who is truly different. We believe his campaign when they say they have nothing to do with the ad, and we also see more than just a little grain of truth in the message.

This doesn't mean that Obama is going to get through unscathed. But, while the perception of Obama may change as the campaign progresses, Clinton's negatives aren't going anywhere. And that's what this ad really drives home.

The Democratic nomination has become a two-horse race in a hurry. I'm not going to be so bold as to say that no one else can enter the fray, but if you were a donor looking to give money to a campaign, what compelling reason is there to give the money to John Edwards or even Bill Richardson? It's hard to believe that you won't soon see withdrawals from Christopher Dodd and proclamations of "I'm not a candidate" from Al Gore. Wesley Clark and Dennis Kucinich aren't even worth the mention I just gave them.

Hillary will continue to reap money, as she has a minting machine for a husband. But Obama is now getting real money, real fast. A fundraiser in HRC's backyard, New York City, netted a cool $1MM ten days ago. Obviously, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Steven Spielberg and David Geffen have no problem getting a few cronies together for some cool change, nor any issues with taking swipes at Geffen's former "friends."

Like it or not, 2008 is about change, and it's looking more and more like the field is getting whittled early to Obama and Guiliani, the only two who seem to never waver in what they have to say. Maybe John McCain gets a another change because of his former maverick image, but it's starting to look like the general perception is someone that toed the party line instead of his own principles. Could someone else get the nomination(s)? Sure. Will they win a general election? Not a chance.

So to repeat: how many still think Hillary's got a chance in hell to win the Democratic nomination?

(That's good, Bill, Hill, and Chelsea: you three go put some money down in Vegas then.)

OBAMA: LINCOLN, TRUMAN OR CARTER?

I'm more than halfway through Barack Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope," and it is some of the most compelling reading of any political manifesto in decades (unless you're firmly in the religious right/ultra-conservative/Atilla-the-Hun-was-a-wimp camp). He is articulate in the expressions of his views. He posesses great intellect; he thinks and speaks well on the fly. What is most compelling is that he shuns any sort of divisive qualities. He speaks well of George Bush the man, even as he disagrees with his policies. He bemoans his party's inability to find anything of value in Republican viewpoints, and praises those who find common ground. Even in his "rebuttal" interview after Bush's address about increasing troops in Iraq, Barack went out of his way to say that, even though he disagreed, the President was doing what he truly believed is the best for the country. He also singled out Republicans who feel as Obama does. He is charismatic, articulate, reasoned, and sincere. But...

Obama is also young, inexperienced, and what experience he has is a few years as a senator and a few more as a member of the Illinois state house. As my liberal Colorado friend says, that qualifies him membership in the world's greatest debating club, but it doesn't identify whether he has the credentials to be President. He's never held office as a mayor, governor, or any other political job that could be considered a sort of minor league proving ground for the presidency. So that begs the question: is he a modern day Abraham Lincoln, an erstwhile Harry Truman, or is he the next Jimmy Carter?

All three of these past presidents were radical politicians for the time, vastly different than their predecessors. They all posessed new approaches and fresh idea of how to shape the country, and all came to the office at a time of great turmoil and transition. They conveyed large amounts of charisma and were able to speak to the common man as a colleague. They also came from what is now referred to as flyover country (Illinois, Missouri, and Georgia). But their results were vastly different: one truly changed a nation for the better (albeit by fire), one was unpopular during most of his tenure, only years later being seen as a great president, and one was...well, let's say that Jimmy Carter wasn't much beloved for anything he ever did in office. And that's the dilemma of Obama: he could be anything from a presidential legend to a political disaster.

Obama has come out of academia, teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago. Is someone who debates ethical questions about the Constitution with college students ready for the maniacal gloves-off fervor of someone who passionately believes differently, while also posessing a "damn the facts, I know what I believe" attitude? This same man was soundly defeated in a bid for a congressional representative seat, and were it not for Jack Ryan's sex club/swinging marriage fiasco would probably have been soundly defeated in his Senate race as well. And yet, Obama makes so much sense when you listen to him, and does so without defiling the opposition that it's no wonder that he is achieving rock star iconic status. He is a breath of fresh air, the voice of reason that has been so absent for 12 years or more. He represents both the fear of the unknown on one hand, the hope of a better brand of politics on the other. He is an idealist, and he is a blank slate.

Obama is the wild card this presidential season. He will likely run and he is the antithesis to Hillary Clinton, as well as to any jaded politicians. I don't agree with many of his positions, but who does jibe perfectly? He seems to have a moral compass and a grounded sense of self, with the capacity to listen and assimilate. Unlike how the right is likely to paint him, he does not come across as a left-wing liberal, but as someone who understands and fits more within the center. He may or may not get my vote, but he has my attention.