Elite is a four letter word

Why are we afraid of elite’s in our government? One of the more irrational fears that has gripped the American electorate for a long time is the fear of someone too much more qualified than themselves might take the office of president.

Listening to the pundits this weekend one of them mused (and I’m paraphrasing), “President Bush back in 2000 didn’t have a lot of the qualities people might look for in a leader but he seemed like the kind of guy you could have a beer with, and people responded to that.” They went on to talk further about President Clinton, whom after winning the democratic nomination was seen as too “learned” and elite, being from the Ivy league and being a Rhodes Scholar and all. They had to relaunch and reintroduce "the man from Hope" to make him more like everyone else. What is it about our politics that makes us strive for the mediocre? Why do we fear having our best and our brightest at the top of the heap? Why does Barack Obama have to constantly remind us that he ate Jello molds as a kid and that he’s just a regular guy who can drink a boilermaker like the rest of us. Why did Hillary Clinton have to throw back drinks in a Pennsylvania bar to prove that she was ready to commander in chief? Why did Al Gore lose in 2000 because he seemed like too much of a nerd? Our recent history is full of examples of extraordinary people of high accomplishment doing whatever they possibly could to avoid appearing stellar.

This practice of who can be the most folksy wouldn’t bother me so much except that it takes intelligent people and makes them say and do dumb things. The best recent example I can think of is Iran policy. The latest political football to get tossed around, Barack Obama has positioned himself as recently as last July as ready to talk with any foreign leader without preconditions. This stance is of course ludicrous. Preconditions and talks with lesser members of government are a pre-requisite of presidential meetings, as they well should be. Senator Obama knows that, and he knows that when he is President he will be able to justify not actually having meetings with rogue leaders because of the specific circumstances involved at any given time. This is a pander to the left, a way of saying, “no, no I am one of you, I really believe that if we all were to just talk that the problems would go away…”

John McCain of course has allowed his pander machine to run off course in the opposite direction. The world according to McCain is a very quiet one, because apparently we would only be talking to our staunchest allies. Presidential interest is a reward for only the best behavior. Under the McCain doctrine we would clam up with Hamas, Iran, Syria, Cuba, and even China (its a communist country, and a human rights violator). Of course that’s not really what’s going to happen. McCain is smart enough and experienced enough to know that with the proper circumstances it makes all the sense in the world to come to the table and discuss.

My only hope is that in all this hope to stop being elite, our candidates don’t lose their minds.

V List Cross Over: Top Five Reasons People Dig This Election

This election cycle has proven to be one of the most exciting in recent memory. The drama and headlines, some natural, some manufactured have kept the public unusually interested in the reality TV show we call the presidential election of 2008. However, there five reasons above all that keep this one interesting...folks if you enjoy this list there are more to be found on topics ranging from sports to star wars over at the v list...

#5. The first open source campaign

We saw inklings of it in 2004 for the Howard Dean Campaign, and some of the mechanics of the machinery for the Kerry Campaign, but the online juggernaut that has exploded in political coverage since both of those campaigns is astounding. The blogs are a whole new level of political importance-the third leg of media checks and balances. There's the official line of the politician, the media's spin, and the the blogosphere hyper-spin or counter spin. Convince the MSM of your point is one thing, read the blogs the next hour, did you convince Kos? 

#4. It's Reality TV

Hillary Clinton's quest to break the highest and hardest glass ceiling, Bill Clinton's obsessive desire to regain the White House by proxy, the public break up between Senator Obama and his off-the-wall pastor, Ron Paul's never ending crusade. This political season has become the best reality show o

n television. 

#3. Bill Clinton

Just when you thought the story line might get boring. Bill pops back up like the plastic dad in Don't Wake Daddy, wide eyed and pissed that some 2 year Senator woke him from his dream of he and his wife going round #2 at the White House. In his agitation he might compare Obama to Jesse Jackson, or maybe he'll claim Hillary's faced brutal sexism, or maybe he'll say that the race card was played against him. Sometimes he just wants to scream at people at campaign rallies. Whatever it is, Bill's always there as ex-presid

ent combatant in chief. 

#2 Yes We Can!

I know its a simplistic and some would say lame campaign slogan. Some would say that the hope Obama promises is hype. But whatever way you slice it, Senator Obama has generated a new an very exciting interest in politics. He has turned the youngest voters on to the process. His charisma, his political skill, his oratory and his thoughtfulness have turned him into the Vin Diesel of politics. I bet he hopes he has a longer shelf life. 

#1 President Bush

Let's face it-we all wouldn't care who was going to be the next president so much if not for the fact that we all disapprove of President Bush so much. Mr. 28% per cent approval has given all of us a reason to be interested in who replaces him. Maybe you hate the war in Iraq, or his administration's abuses of power, maybe you think negotiating with enemies is intelligent, maybe you like a President that can string together a sentence with more than 3 multi-syllabic words in it without getting that dim sort of glazed over look is appealing. Maybe you don't want a vice president that reminds you so much of Darth Vader. Whatever your particular beef it's reason enough to want someone new, desperately. And so we all watch with great intent the buffon reality play that is our current presidential cycle. 

Beware: Lull Ahead

As the delegate math sews up for Senator Obama look for the lull to set in. Political coverage in MSM is going to slow down in the coming weeks as media organizations have fewer contests to cover. To be sure the blogs and cable news will go on dissecting every uttered syllable, but the public's attention span and therefore big network coverage will shrink on this topic until the conventions. This is good news for Senator Obama. He hasn't won a dominant victory over Senator Clinton, but rather a war of attrition. As long as Senator Clinton doesn't do anything to make their battle more public in the weeks and months leading to the convention, the media will yawn as she makes her arguments on electability. The lull will be the media slow-down Obams needs to quietly mend fences after a divisive primary battle.

The lull hurts Senator McCain. He needs all the free media coverage he can get with so little in his campaign coffers. With Republican brand ID so startlingly low, McCain needs open air to declare himself the unconventional Republican. If people fall asleep to the election season and wake up for McCain's convention speech he might get tagged with that brand clear to November.

America Doesn't vote on Policy...and that is OK.

It might sound ironic coming from a guy who writes a a blog dedicated to thinking about Policy and Politics. This presidential election will change the political landscape in America, it will not however, be about policy.

Why?

Because it never is. Ever since the dawn of media machines owned by political campaigns voters have learned to judge politicians not by the promises they make, the vast majority of which end up being false, but by the sense they get for leadership style.

There are real policy differences between senators Obama and McCain. But by the time it comes to voting people are going to be making judgments based largely on feel and who they identify with more. Americans understand that a campaign platform does not mean every policy will get enacted, more that this platform represents the kinds of changes a particular candidate would like to see made.

Mind you, I don't think this is a bad thing. This comes from a legitimate, if unspoken understanding of the constitution. Americans understand that while a president may drive the agenda, they cannot by themselves radically alter the nation. Our founders put in place a series of checks and balances so precise and so demanding that any president no matter how charismatic, must work the political levers to enact legislation. Ultimately, that kind of leadership prowess is what is being judged.

Hillary: The Choice of the Last Generation!

Analysis of the polls will tell you that young people don't favor Hillary. Maybe it's her mullet, or the fact that she represents everything wrong with the world of politics; double talk, skeletons in her closet, and the ability to pawn pure bullshit on an unsuspecting and uneducated voting public. Let me not mince words, because now my narrative is taking a turn for the worst. After tonight's primaries it is abundantly clear that she cannot win. In baseball this would be where a team's magic number is zero, but oddly enough Hillary is still playing for the postseason. Why? Pure vanity and megalomania have consumed the person that once claimed she was in the race for the ordinary voter. Oh, please Hillary! 

This isn't about the voters, it isn't about the Democratic party, it isn't even about who is the best suited candidate against John McCain. What is left of your pathetic and desperate run for the White House is all about one thing, your ego. Perhaps you cannot fathom how you, the inevitable heir to the White House, were beaten by this upstart that captured the hearts and minds of voters the Democratic party has been unable to mobilize despite "Rocking" the vote for the past eight years. Not even a pop laden MTV campaign could accomplish what the Obama campaign has done in a few short months. How could this happen? It's because the young voters don't want a band aid to fix the bullet wound that has injured American government. People with college educations, (who mainly vote for Obama if one should analyze the statistics) can see right through your crappy gas tax idea, which will leave most of the middle class with a little less than seventy dollars. I would rather set fire to that seventy dollars than to see your unoriginal ideas, which mirror those of McCain, become policy in the upcoming months. 

Despite the media's (and Republican talk radio's) clear attempts to turn this election into a debate on everything except the economy, the war, and other pressing issues, you are still not winning. So go on and cry about how if you count Florida and Michigan, you are winning the popular vote. Continue to say that you won the battleground states where the old Democratic guard has been so well received (despite losing twice to the unelectable George W. Bush). Continue to play the race card and continue to tie Obama to his preacher, who I might mention IS NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT! Continue to duck sniper fire and hold on to your connections in the inner circle of the Democratic party. The more you do, the more you will demonstrate how bitter and "unlikeable" you really are. It's no surprise that you are basically winning every Republican county, because you are the choice of the last generation, and if the Democrats want change in the White House, your scowl will not deliver it. 

Do We have a "Green" candidate?

Thomas Friedman, who's editorial style usually irks me , wrote an interesting piece in this week's NY Times, covering his usual topic, our energy policy, or in this case the distinct lack thereof.

It led to a simple question from this blogger...do we have a "green" candidate? So in an effort to bring you our reading public the answer I did what anyone ducking work at his 9-5 does, I trolled the internet for answers....

Hillary Clinton's campaign website lays out her plan here. It's an interesting plan, the near-term center piece is a cap and trade system of carbon credits. It is the main bullet point, with good reason, it stands the most chance of actually being effective. There are several others but the devil is in the details. For example...

An aggressive comprehensive energy efficiency agenda to reduce electricity consumption 20 percent from projected levels by 2020 by changing the way utilities do business, catalyzing a green building industry, enacting strict appliance efficiency standards, and phasing out incandescent light bulbs;

The key phrase "20 percent from project levels by 2020." So the plan is to reduce electricity consumption by 20 percent of a projection higher than what we use today? That's not a reduction, that's stasis.

One more from Planet Hillary, then we'll move on.

• A plan to catalyze a thriving green building industry by investing in green collar jobs and helping to modernize and retrofit 20 million low-income homes to make them more energy efficient;
  

Investing in green collar jobs....how? Is the government going to start building offices and homes? Turning on power grids? As long as private industry runs these things, as they well should, the government isn't going to invest in anything.

On to Barack Obama, his plan is also centered on a near-term cap and trade system. Sounds good. He's got lots of of bullet points too, but those pesky details seem to be getting in the way...

Invest $150 Billion over 10 Years in Clean Energy: Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid. A principal focus of this fund will be devoted to ensuring that technologies that are developed in the U.S. are rapidly commercialized in the U.S. and deployed around the globe.

I LOVE this bullet point. As bullet points go its the best bullet point I've read so far. Unfortunately, it has no basis in reality. Exactly where is congress going to get $150 billion dollars? Perhaps raising taxes will solve the problem...congress just loves to raise taxes. While I applaud the idea, it's far from politically tenable.

So in review on the Democratic side, I see lots of bullet points, they all sound great, but I have no idea how they will actually get implemented. Details, details, details. Let's hop over to the Republican side of the ledger...

John McCain offers us his plan here. Well "plan" is generous, John McCain offers us his sense that "common sense stewardship" is important.

As John McCain said, "Americans solve problems. We don't run from them." He believes that ignoring the problem reflects a "liberal live for today" attitude unworthy of our great country, and poses a serious and unacceptable threat to our environment, our economy, and U.S. national security. He has offered common sense approaches to limit carbon emissions by harnessing market forces that will bring advanced technologies, such as nuclear energy, to the market faster, reduce our dependence on foreign supplies of energy, and see to it that America leads in a way that ensures all nations do their rightful share.

That's It! No bullet points! I LOVE bullet points! John McCain's website offers no policy meat. Just the idea that he will help us along. "The problem" unnamed and undefined was apparently caused by liberals, and by extension is threat to our national security. Forget details, give me something here Senator.

Sadly, it seems none of our candidates have an actionable plan for the environment. Why? Because the real answers to the climate crisis are not politically tenable. It's going to take bold (politically damaging) leadership to actually make a change.

Stop Talking about 100 Years

Here's a piece of advice for Democrats when it comes to fighting John McCain. Stop talking about the "100 years" comment. Watch the attack ad below.



I realize the war is unpopular. I also recognize that most Americans want us out of Iraq. So this kind of comment seems tailor-made for attack ads. However, what it really does is serve McCain a soft volley to hammer back. McCain's comment referred to the kind of security situation we have with Japan, South Korea, Germany, etc. When the Democrats make this their primary talking point they are serving McCain's argument that the dems really don't understand national security and if they did they wouldn't have taken his comments so vastly out of context.

If the Democrats want to win swing voters they need to explain that they understand the military and how it is used. This kind of nonsense won't past the McCain defense's muster.

Dan Balz on what John McCain will need to do this summer and fall

Dan Balz, one of the best political writers in the business lays out what he believes John McCain must do to win the White House. Balz's take is that McCain needs to brand himself a "different Republican." He looks at the numbers of generic Democrat versus generic Republican and sees no way to fight for party orthodoxy and win.

I see his argument but we see in McCain's Sunday morning talk show appearances that he's not going to frame the race as being a "different Republican" but being a "true conservative." The argument he is building and will continue to build is not that President Bush was wholly wrong, but that he didn't fully realize conservatism. We see this most clearly on the taxes argument. The problem is not that Bush cut taxes twice while prosecuting two expensive wars, its that he didn't cut spending...so says McCain. A real conservative keeps taxes AND spending low.

Look for that to be the argument this fall.

Why John McCain Should Be Worried

Common discussion these days is that the real beneficiary from the fight between Clinton and Obama is John McCain. He, in fact, should be worried about the trends of the race. While its true the protracted campaign has certainly taken is toll on all the candidates involved. The numbers are trending toward the democrats. The registration numbers in Pennsylvania are but one indicator. So are the cross over registrants. You can even look to the Neilsen ratings for the last Democratic debate (which trumped all previous debates and only lost to American Idol on the night) to see the country's interest is trending leftward. All of this is not to say a Democratic party win in November is inevitable. Its only to say that while McCain gets to sit in his perch and snipe, he doesn't have an even share of the spotlight, and that should worry him more than encourage him.

UPDATE: A quick read of Politico this morning has this article about Penn. voter registration and turn out, check it out.

And another read provides this update on McCain's fund raising situation.

An Open Letter to the Democratic Party's Super Delegates

Jake Tapper of ABC News reports in his blog yesterday that the Clinton Campaign is pursuing the "Tonya Harding Option." Essentially that we have all missed the point first raised by Politico and then repeated by the pundits on the Sunday talk shows, Hillary Clinton cannot mathematically win this nomination. Tapper's interview with a high-ranking DNC official sums up this way-basically we are all missing the point. Clinton can still win the nomination its just a matter of what she is willing to do to win the nomination. Her not-so secret "kitchen sink" policy, is to stop at nothing to tear down the Obama campaign, from now to the convention.

So I come to the Super Delegates of the Democratic party and I ask them to carefully consider what kind of a party do they want to have going into this critical election cycle? It is easy to dismiss the Obama campaign for being based on nothing but rhetoric, but if that is the greatest flaw in a campaign is that really enough to dismiss it? In this week alone, Hillary Clinton has lied about her international experience, has called into question the role of pledged delegates in deciding the nomination, and reintroduced the Wright controversy to the campaign. All in an effort to win this nomination at any cost. If she somehow achieves this despite her negative rhetoric, her use of fear mongering, her pattern of bringing race just to the surface and then squashing it before real debate could ensue, it would be a travesty.

But there is something worse that would come of it. Her nomination would energize the McCain campaign more than anything he could muster himself. But Senator Clinton knows that, she sees the same polling numbers we do, and she knows how high her negatives are, and so she will tear down McCain the same way she's trying to tear down Obama. She will find subtle, yet constant ways of reminding us of his age, she will stop at nothing to tear down a decent man on her way to the presidency and in the process energize the republican party against her much the way her husband did. We will face another 4-8 years in Washington of gridlock and divisiveness as Clinton would have scorched much of the democratic party and enraged the entire republican party on her way to the presidency.

You all have the choice, you can undercut her monstrous rhetoric like Gov. Richardson did last week, you can stand with an agent of real change like Ted Kennedy and Senator Kerry have. You can support a nominee who is uniquely positioned to talk to voters across demographic lines, not just as a candidate, not just as a nominee, but eventually as President of the United States.

Or we can relive the battles of the 90's and George Bush's tenure in the White House, we can win in an electoral squeaker, and suffer through another presidential term or two that gets nothing done, where the huge problems of our times go unsolved. The choice is yours, but remember one last thing. If the choice were up to the pledged delegates, or the popular vote, we'd already know who the nominee would be.

Greatest American Hero: Hillary Clinton

Believe it or not, she's walking on air! Move over Captain America, this politician hits the ground running. She's stormed the beaches of Normandy, protected American soldiers during the Black Hawk down incident in Somalia, and was under sniper fire during her visit to war-torn Bosnia. Ok, so none of these things actually happened, but at least one of them did, in her mind. Hillary recently apologized for her mental snafu, saying that she may have "misspoke" about landing in a hot-zone while exiting a plane in Bosnia. It's comical to watch CBS footage of Clinton and her daughter Chelsea calmly walking while being fired upon. I find this extremely pleasing since last week Barack Obama was lambasted for comments made by another person, but here is a direct lie from her own mouth. These lies should come as no surprise, her entire resume is a political farce. Being first lady does not qualify one to be the President of the United States. I heard the best analogy on talk radio, when a caller said, "I can be the wife of a plumber for eight years, but that doesn't make me a certified plumber." Unfortunately, Hillary supporters are just as, if not more delusional about her qualifications. If you revisit the majority of the debates over the past year, Hillary takes credit for events in which she either played no role, or a minor one at best. Hillary stop being a hypocrite by accusing Obama for living in a fantasy world. It appears as if your reality needs some adjustment.

The Rise of Politico.com

One of the things we try to discuss at Policythought is media coverage. In every avenue of our democracy a free and unfettered press is the unwritten check and balance to our government. We've watched the media change the way politicians and citizens interact and how issues become important within our society.

But what happens when the media can actually change a story? What happens when a media outlet becomes capable of actually changing the way something like say a presidential primary works? That's what happened last week and its what's been happening rapidly since politico.com came on the scene.

Remarkably, Politico was founded little more than a year ago, when John F. Harris and Jim Vandehei left the Washington Post to create a website that covered politics 24/7. In that short window of time Politico hasn't simply become another website in a sea of websites on politics. It has in no uncertain terms become a powerful force in shaping political debate.

Take last week for example. Senator Obama had a very tough week dealing with the Rev. Wright issue and the remaining fallout. But by the time Sunday and the talk shows came around it was one headline story on Politico that had all the pundits talking. The title was Story behind the story: The Clinton Myth. That story changed the week's narrative from simply "Obama had a tough week." to "Obama had a tough week, but Clinton still can't win." Politico, with its decisive insight and strong worded reporting of the mathematical reality cut through the mountains of spin coming from both camps to highlight the reality of the campaign and shift the focus of the debate.

When was the last time a media outlet did that?

Dig The Wig!

A prominent Wig has thrown his hat into the political ring this election season (and I don't mean the ghost of former Whig President William Henry Harrison). In perhaps one of the strangest yet most entertaining episodes of The Simpsons in recent history, the long-running animated comedy declared notorious bed-wetter and slightly "touched" Ralph Wiggum as a candidate for President of the United States. What???

I missed the episode, entitled "E Pluribus Wiggum" when it first aired earlier this year, but I caught the replay last night in all its glory. Thinking I'd be clever and blog on it, I did a little research and found that Ralph has his own campaign web site. What, what???

Now here's the real shocker: Ralph's policy, though his rhetoric is a bit simplistic, is actually pretty insightful! And I can't help but support his choice for Secretary of Indian Burns.

WIGGUM ON THE ISSUES:

Immigration – “Stranger danger!”

Government Spending – “I only have this much moneys.”

Party Politics – “Everyone is invited to my party!”

Slogan – “I Dig the Wig”

Ethics – “I’m Ralph Wiggum and I’ve been a good boy.”

Political Appointments – Bart Simpson as the Secretary of Indian Burns and Lisa Simpson as his First Ladle

Foreign Relations – “When we’re mad we’ll use our words. Then the rest of the world will play nice with us. And the only boom-booms will be in our pants.”

And when you take into account Ralph must be strong on crime (his dad is Springfield Police Chief Clancy Wiggum), for a strong military (he once sang in music videos to recruit for the Navy - "yvan eht nioj"!) and that he's pro-education ("When I grow up, I want to go to Bovine University!"), Ralph doesn't seem such a terrible alternative. Now, whether The Simpsons was trying to make a profound statement on American elections and a return to policy over politics, or whether the show simply wanted to make a funny, I must admit that I, too, dig the wig.

BONUS: The Bloodhound Gang Sings "Ralph Wiggum" (a song composed entirely of actual Ralph Wiggum dialogue).

David Mamet: Political Prophet

There is a prophet living among us. He is no Elijah foretelling the coming of Christ. He is no Nostradamus predicting the rise of Hitler from gazing mystically into a candle-lit mirror. No, he is David Mamet, Pulitzer Prize winning playwright of Glengarry Glen Ross and countless other plays and films. And when it comes to politics and world affairs, he says sooth with incredible truth.

Consider his 1997, Oscar-nominated Wag The Dog, about a president whose aides help him fake a war with Albania to distract the nation from an alleged sexual encounter with a Firefly Girl (ie: like Girl Scout). The term "wagging the dog" is now pundit vernacular. Or, more shockingly, consider this strikingly prophetic line from WTG (to be read a la Robert DeNiro):

"And if you go to war again, who is it going to be against? Your "ability to fight a Two-ocean War" against who? Sweden and Togo? That time has passed. It's passed. It's over. The war of the future is nuclear terrorism. It is and it will be against a small group of dissidents who, unbeknownst, perhaps, to their own governments, have blah blah blah."

That's 4 years before 9/11. That's long before we started hearing about "suitcase bombs" and "dirty bombs." In fact, Dustin Hoffman's producer character creates the idea of a suitcase bomb coming across the border from Canada as the dramatic/narrative answer to how Albania could threaten the U.S. So, assuming that Mr. Mamet's prowess for prophecy is as adept as his ability drop F-bombs, what then can be gleaned from his current Broadway hit November, starring Nathan Lane as a shady, dysfunctional, failure of a President seeking re-election? Let us ponder the prophecy...

Will the RNC abandon John McCain before the election if he won't play ball with the conservative agenda? In the play, the President Smith is abandoned and denied funding a week before the election when his campaign appears to be dead in the water. Will the RNC leave McCain out to dry if it appears he can't deliver? In 4 years, should he win, will McCain be left hanging if his policies/practices don't live up to RNC expectations? Only time and Mamet will tell..

Will George W. Bush be denied a presidential library? President Smith gets no funding for a library because his presidency is deemed such a failure. Honestly, who's going to want to visit a library with the Bush memoirs and a big blown up photos of the infamous "Mission Accomplished," Katrina and Baghdad? Only time and Mamet will tell..

Will George W. Bush find something other than the war to claim as his legacy?
President Smith chooses to tackle gay marriage and put his foot firmly in the ground on an issue he believes in. Will Bush do something worthy of lasting social merit after 4 years of discriminating against gays and immigrants while denying important stem cell research? Only time and Mamet will tell..

I could go on at great length. Instead, I recommend you check out this insightful and funny piece of satire on the Great White Way. Or stay in and rent Wag The Dog. And, in order to maintain some sense of credibility for this post, kindly ignore Mamet's film The Edge. No one cares if in the future Alec Baldwin and/or Anthony Hopkins fight a bear. Unless the bear wins. Bears rule.

Support American Ingenuity

Many have pointed out the lack of discussion about global warming in the presidential debates. Indeed, among our politicians in general, there seems to be a void when it comes to addressing the problems of our oil dependency and alternative energy. Sure, they'll do some lip service to the idea of energy independence if asked, but no one has really formulated a concrete plan for making it happen. Where is the pioneering, innovative spirit America is known for? Where is our faith in our own ingenuity?

TIME magazine published an article highlighting a few ways scientists are harnessing energy; you can read it here: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1720111,00.html

Among them is the idea of harnessing the kinetic power from the motion of person walking. "You won't feel comfortable or fashionable walking around with Max Donelan's invention strapped to your knee. The bulky 3.5-lb. (1.6 kg) gadget "is not that pleasant," says Arthur Kuo, a biomedical engineer at the University of Michigan....Using the same principles that allow hybrid cars to recycle energy created in braking, braces worn on both knees can generate 5 watts of electricity by harvesting the energy inherent in a walker's stride. That may not sound like much, but it's enough to charge 10 cell phones, and it's absolutely free."

Plenty of people strap on weights to their ankles when they walk...why not generate electricity instead? If this kind of innovation can happen on its own, imagine what we could do with a President aggressively encouraging industries to create this kind of technologies with competitive deadlines, generous grants, and the enthusiasm and focus of the nation as a whole. What could be more patriotic than that? So, c'mon...Support American Ingenuity!

Clinton/Obama ticket?

On CBS news this morning, Sen. Clinton answered questions, including one about the possibility of her and Obama running on the same ticket.

The question is, assuming that Clinton gets the top spot on the ticket, would it be beneficial for Obama to be VP? In terms of winning the general election, I don't think that people who don't like Clinton are going to be any more likely to vote for her because Obama is on the ticket. And moreover, does he want to be in that position? Its likely that Bill Clinton will be a VP in his own right. Going on the previous Clinton presidency, who doesn't remember the attention and focus on Hillary's healthcare concerns as opposed to Gore's environmental concerns? No matter who the Clintons tap for the VP spot, that person has to contend with the fact that this is a far from usual situation.

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?