campaigns, money…and the online conversation

January 25, 2007

does anyone else think the “game” of politics has gone a little too far? i mean- come on. the democratic primary is more than a year away and already the nominees are going full speed ahead. and they aren’t even jockeying for positions on important issues or trying to gain voter support. no, it’s not time for that yet. what comes first is what will really determine who’s on the ballot in ’08- $$$.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the supposed “front-runners,” are in a mad dash to see who can get the financing from major contributors. Clinton is feeling pressure from her base givers, some see more star power in Obama.

And what about star-power? Is charisma the only thing voters look for in candidates? Obama- certainly a man with a huge future and massive potential, seems to be little more than an inexperienced senator with big dreams.

Everyone agrees that politics in Washington needs reform. Maybe this is a good place to start. Is it really necessary to spend years campaigning? (Especially when you’re a member of the Senate and you actually have a job to do…but that’s another issue.)

The whole “conversation,” which Hillary initiated and Edwards followed in the footsteps of, is a ploy to make voters think they have a real say in what issues the candidates take on. Maybe the candidates will listen- i’m no cynic. But i can’t see a correlation between raising millions to finance campaigns and caring enough to hold online “chats” with the people.


5 Responses to “campaigns, money…and the online conversation”

  1. madmouser said

    They spend more time campaigning than doing their elected jobs. They should return at least half their salary back to the Treasury. I am sick of all of them.

  2. kenjac84 said

    I agree. This will be the first election where a ElectionDay loss can be blamed on over-exposure. Notice how wisely the Republicans have laid-off the campaigning.

    With one of the least-liked administrations leaving office in two years, Democrats feel just being their party’s representative in the presidential election virtually promises them the White House. It’s a case of the rabbit and the turtle, and I’d be more than surprised – delighted in fact – if a Republican won after all of the hoopla about Democrats.

    These people have been elected to legislate and work for us – only Biden has continued to do so – the rest should have a meeting with Donald Trump.
    “You’re fired!”

  3. fiercetalk said

    Delighted? I take issue with that kenjac… Let’s hope they’ll learn, not lose.

  4. Dan said

    I’m going to humbly disagree.

    The reform that Washington needs is the responsibility of the Congress.

    A college professor once said that the President is basically the focal point of praise and criticism. Just a figure, an actor, the face of Washington.

    The first person we see on our television sets in times of national tragedy (or triumph) is the president, not a member of Congress. Sometimes people need a smooth talker.

    After two embarassing losses for the Democratic Party, I don’t blame the candidates when they scramble to get the biggest donors.

    This will be a good election for Democrats and Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Vilsack, Richardson don’t want to miss the chance to get back the Whitehouse.

  5. George Kral said

    I agree also. Which is I why I think we (the citizen/voter) should focus on political party not personality. The only thing that matters is that the Republicans are tossed and the Democrats take control. On the other hand, I do like Kucinich (sp?).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: