Is Change in the Wind?

Romney and Clinton coming in 2nd and 3rd respectively in the Iowa Caucus is a signal. It signals that real voters, real middle-class Iowans want the Anti-Bush. It's not surprise that Obama and Huckabee rose in the polls at nearly the same time and rode that wave to victory. When real Iowans started to pay attention they showed their desire for change, their desire for entirely new directions in their parties.

In the battle of establishment versus new guard mark this down as a small, but important victory for the new guard.

What's driving the domestic agenda

The NY Times ran a cover story today I didn't get to read but the
headline blared "domestic issues now trump Iraq war." if we accept
that premise as true, then what on the domestic agenda will drive your
vote in 2008. How does an issue like Global Warming fit into the
American Agenda. Is it a domestic policy issue?a foriegn policy issue?
Why have candidates spent so little time thus far discussing it?

Iowa Votes Tonight, and we all care too much

A media frenzy has been in full force for months, possibly even years in anticipation of tonight's Caucus in Iowa. Of course, it hasn't just been the television, newspaper and radio chattering class that has driven the enthusiasm for the Caucus and the NH primary. The voters in both states are expected to turn out in unprecedented numbers this year.

Lost in the shuffle of the money race and the huge turnout, is why we are all in such a frenzy over what at most 300,000 people in Iowa will say tonight about who should be president. Forget that Iowa has a mized record when it comes to predicting future winners and forget that the population that attends the caucuses are a remarkably small sliver of the Iowa population to say nothing of how they do not represent an accurate cross-section of Americans. The real thing to remember when it comes to why we care so much about this primary is that this nation is ready to move forward. This nation is ready to see new leadership and a change in direction.

To be more to the point, this nation is sick of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice and the rest of the the crew in the White House. President Bush is residing over what is seen as a failed presidency and ultimately that is what is driving this enthusiasm.

Why is it important to remember this? It's important because as we jump into the horse race of 2008 is it too easy to forget our flawed decision making in 2000 and 2004. Al Gore was steered away from talking about Global Warming in 2000 as a presidential contender, yet this past year he has become a national icon and Nobel Prize winner for his efforts to make this global problem known. In 2004, John Kerry called for the kind of wide-reaching regional diplomacy the middle east has been lacking for decades, our current President spent his time threatening to attack Iran for weapons they did not have.

So as the frenzy continues, as the media hype for the winners of Iowa grows-let's try to remember that in our fervor to remove one bad president, its not worth bringing in another.

Iowa Caucuses

Tomorrow they will begin to caucus in Iowa. It is the first real political contest of the election year. It's the nation first contest designed to choose the democrat and republican candidates for the 2008 elections. Iowa traditionally doesn't forbear winners in each party. It does, however winnow away the field heading into New Hampshire. Taken in tandem the Iowa Caucus, the New Hampshire Primary and the South Carolina Primary are considered the three most important contests of the primary season, simply by virtue of the fact they are the earliest contests of the year. Two of them, Iowa and New Hampshire are prescribed to be so by state law.

Most Americans know these things, but many Americans are starting to wonder if the Iowa caucus followed only five days later by the New Hampshire primary is the most effective way to weed away nominees in both parties. Why does Iowa a rural state with an overwhelmingly white population get lavished with all of this attention? The state doesn't have the kind of diverse population or economic background of the US as a whole. It is by and large not demonstrative of the general US population's interests, needs, or desires from their commander-in-chief. Yet the politicians, pundits, volunteers and workers of this election cycle come to Iowa with the same ferocity as they have in the past.

The reason is rooted in the concept of "retail politics." The idea that the candidates, in order to impress caucus goers of Iowa, must actually go out there and meet the voters face to face. They meet in living rooms, in diners, in school auditoriums, and in backyards. They start making visits in the summer and they don't stop until the last vote is cast. We place value in the people of Iowa's judgement because they get an opportunity most of the rest of the nation will not. They actually get to meet these folks face to face and ask them tough, very purposful policy questions. They get to look the candidate in the eye and get a real sense for who they are and what they will stand for. Most Americans will only see their president and all of the candidates through a television screen.

Defenders of the Iowa-New Hampshire method also like to point out that if you removed this process in favor of regional or a national primary it will make the money race, which is already paramount in this country, even more so. They reason that a national primary will eliminate the need for meeting people face to face. It will kill "retail politics" and turn the primaries into a national media war.

I wonder if there isn't a middle-road. Is there a way to maintain, or even increase the "retail politics" nature of the early primaries, but at the same time, give more of the nation a say in who the nominees will be?

The primaries

This blog is dedicated to the idea thatciebis possible for average
citizens to explore policy decisions and alternatives in a clear-
headed and thought provoking way with out resorting to simply partisan
talking points and rhetoric.

It is my belief that the Internet represents for the first time since
the printing press the possibilty for ideas to be broadcast and
published and exist in the public square on equal footing for the good
of the democracy and the nation.

If we do not use this new medium as a way for the citizens of the
nation to dissect the ideas of others and offer their own we are
wasting an opportunity to change the way we discuss policy.

All right enough gushing. Please feel free to post comments and make
suggestions. I certainly don't want this to be a one way street.