As a political junkie, I maintain an interest in national and world affairs, and follow candidates and campaigns far more closely than the average person. But until very recently, I had absolutely no interest in next year’s presidential election. For one thing, the political cycle has become very skewed over the last couple of decades, and we have now entered the era of the perpetual campaign. No sooner had the 2006 election ended when we were subject to candidate after candidate declaring their interest, or actually throwing their hat in the ring. Rather than focus on the myriad substantive issues that we face (a war that is draining us in so many ways, a health care system that is on the verge of collapse, an environment in turmoil…) or reforming the system (repairing the damage caused by Smirk, Gonzales, Rove, Shooter, and others at the Department of Justice, eliminating the money chase and undue influence wielded by special interests in campaigns), the focus is on whether Giuliani and McCain said the right thing, or how much Edwards’ haircut cost, or whether Obama is “black enough.” Additionally, the race is unusually fluid this time around: it’s the first time in eons we haven’t had an heir apparent or presumptive aiming for the throne presidency, and anything can happen between now and the end of the year. Adulterer-in-Chief Gingrich has been making noises about running (dream on, Newtie– we don’t want you), and Fred Thompson is doing quite a bit of posturing as well. I’m personally keeping my eye on Al Gore. While he’s made his own noises about not being interested in 2008, our Once and Future (?) President has shrewdly kept the door ajar *just that much.* I suspect he knows that Obama and Clinton are fighting for support from similar constituencies, and run the risk of deadlocking with roughly enough equal support on both sides. If that happened, it’s plausible that a third candidate could just jump in and seize the momentum. That candidate could very well be Gore.

But for the time being, I have no real enthusiasm for any of the declared candidates. The Republicans, obviously, are not to my liking at all, and most of the Democrats are too bland and moderate for my taste. I was wowed by Obama when he spoke at the Democratic Convention in 2004, and knew he had a future in politics, perhaps even as a presidential candidate, or possibly the Presidency itself. But since he won the Senate in Illinois, he hasn’t impressed me. He’s been totally under the radar, and hasn’t staked out strong positions. Additionally, he wasn’t even present yesterday for the no-confidence vote in the Senate (never mind that the vote wouldn’t have actually done anything; sometimes just taking a stand means a whole lot). Edwards has been saying all the right things on poverty, which is an issue I wish more people would speak up about, and actually do something about. But I’m still not convinced. When I see Edwards, I keep thinking, “great Veep material…”

Naturally, none of the Republicans appeal to me because I am fairly progressive in my political stance, and right now is hardly the time for another Republican anyway– Smirk has just totally trashed the government and the nation’s core principles in so many ways, that I do not want another Republican in office for at least a generation (or at least until the Religious Right and the neo-cons are completely marginalized; the Republican Party has changed drastically from what it was 40-50 years ago). If I was *forced* to pick a Republican, Chuck Hagel might be okay… emphasis on “might.” While I’m not enamored of Paul’s positions in many areas, he has been saying and doing some common-sense things (such as voting against the PATRIOT Act, the military commissions, and the Iraq War). But overall, no elephants, or donkeys posing as elephants, for me.

What perked up my interest was two items. The first was a post at Daily Kos about one of the recent debates, and how Barack Obama gently raised the point that some (okay, MANY) of the questions asked at these forums are either simplistic, stupid, or “gotcha” questions that do little to really explain what the person answering the question might do if elected president (and this is what really bothers me: ONE of those people *will* be the eventual nominee, and ONE of those people could very well be President. Others on the stage could end up in senior administration posts, or for the congressfolk that will keep their jobs, they’ll still be in Congress. It would benefit everybody if the moderators/media took the time to actually ask meaningful questions, instead of being lazy and disingenuous.

While I’ve already said I’m not impressed with Obama in general, I *am* impressed that he’s willing to show that he’s not going to put up with any b.s. like this. I’m hoping that the others will pick up on this and do the same thing. The media have a powerful influence on society, but unfortunately much of the Corporate Media either abuses this power, or abandons it. It’s nice to see this reminder of what they’re supposed to do, and what they should be doing. I’m watching Obama and the others a bit more closely now because of this.

The second event that’s made me realize that perhaps it’s time to really start paying attention is our primary system. There’s an excellent piece on the primary system at Slate; here’s the first and second halves of this article. I took on the history and development of the primary system, and offered my own solution, earlier this year. The Slate article, by David Greenberg, is much more detailed, yet succinct. He offers a brief history of how New Hampshire and Iowa became the first states in the primary season, and why the front-loading this coming year just might not accomplish what it’s supposed to do.

I agree with Greenberg; although I still think rotating regional primaries might be a good solution, it’s clear that something needs to change. The current process we have is treated as sacrosanct, but I think dismantling the present scheme and replacing it with something that’s both equitable and possible is necessary.  Part of that solution is going to have to involve the Corporate Media, partly because the media has so much influence in shaping the election, thanks to ads, interviews, general coverage, news magazines, puff pieces, talking heads, and the like. Of course, money plays a big role in it too– election finance reform would go a long way in helping reshape American politics.

Most of all, I think general attitudes need to change. Too many people see voting as an elective responsibility, or a chore. Too many people don’t educate themselves, and the Corporate Media shares some of the blame for this too. For example, here in L.A., the Los Angeles Times will cover national and state races, but when it comes to school board elections, judicial elections, and the like, there’s hardly any coverage whatsoever. Often, I can determine the positions candidates for higher office have staked out, but it’s difficult to determine which lower-ballot candidate is the best, because the paper, along with other media, don’t take their civic responsibilities as seriously or as fully as they should. As a result, I feel I can’t cast a vote for some of these municipal or regional jobs because I would be doing all the candidates a disservice. This is disturbing, because I’m a person that tries to become educated about the candidates. What about the average voter, who probably waits until the last couple weeks of October to acquaint themselves with the candidates?

It disturbs me, but I don’t see change coming as quickly as it should. I’m going to be paying more attention now, especially with the first primaries happening in January 2008, just six months off. However, the primary season could change, and we could end up seeing the first balloting as early as this December. What I’m worried about though, is that the calendar will become so front-loaded that a candidate will emerge in just a few weeks, and then we’ll be stuck with two major-party candidates who may very well not be the best choices, and who will then drag us along in the months leading to the general election. If a candidate is “chosen” by March, then we’ve got nearly eight months, interspersed by a “coronation” at the conventions, to endure the political season. It might be fine for a junkie like me, but I suspect it’ll be agony for the average person. I’m not holding out hope, but I would like to see some reform in my lifetime. I don’t think the present system is working.