If only I could raise $30 million in three weeks...

According to CNN's Political Ticker, Newt Gingrich announced Monday that he would enter the campaign if donors contributed "at least $30 million... over a three-week period starting Monday and ending Oct. 21."

But before you all experience a euphoria-induced blog-o-seizure, let's think about Gingrich's chances should he enter the 'invisible primary.'

As most of you have probably noticed, a couple battleground political states are waging a rather subtle yet important war. Each vying to overtake New Hampshire for the title of 'first primary,' preliminary elections are moving closer and closer to the beginning of 2008. I've even heard CNN refer to what was known as 'Super Tuesday' as 'Super Duper Tuesday' (thanks, Wolf...) because the primaries now resemble a sort of national referendum on the candidates.

That effectively leaves Gingrich four months to campaign; a hurdle that underlies the effects of unequal media (in)exposure during the primary process.

And let's not forget Gingrich's $30 million challenge. As of June 30, 2007, the top two candidate in terms of fund raising, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, campaigned for nearly $35 million and $33 million, respectively.

In other words, Gingrich hopes to do in three months what the current candidates have been doing for well over six. That's a little too idealist for me.

I mean, I, like anyone else, want to see a competent man or woman elected to the office of the president in 2008. I, again like the rest of this Web site's bloggers, hope the person who makes the grade does so fairly and openly with as much discourse as possible. But there is a fine line between idealism and pragmatism. Gingrich should run, but he needs to tone down his expectations if he wants to be successful; expectations are usually the reasons candidates fail. And he has to remember that despite his criticism, the system is what it is. He can hate the present state of political discourse and lambaste the insular primary or donor systems all to the approval of voter applause, but he has to play and rely on the system if he wishes to fix it. Tis the irony of politics.

The political clock is ticking, Newt.

Hello World! I'm running for president!

Ok so I know this was last week's news but I feel that Fred Thompson's announcement on the Jay Leno Show should be looked at a bit closer. We have come to a point in political campaigns when and where you announce your presidency is critical to your perception as president. Fred Thompson was extremely clever to announce his bid in the race the same night as the Republican debate. Coincidence? I think not! He was able to hog all of the media attention away from the other candidates running for president - a strategy played to perfection. Congrats Fred Thompson. I'm sure you were enjoying your bowl of cheerios, smiling as you read the paper the morning after your announcement. Don't you love politics?

WhoseTube Debates

A few months after the Democratic YouTube debate and a few months before the Republican, now is as good a time as any to reflect on what exactly is the point of these Web 2.0 inspired debates. Are they really holding the candidates accountable to the voters, or are they merely a hip charade?
According to YouTube, "This is your country, and your presidential debate." However, the YouChoose '08 site goes on to say that the CNN political team chooses which videos will air, a method out of line with the Web 2.0 modus operandi. Why not decide by votes? Comments? Clicks?
Perhaps CNN and YouTube are trying to assuage the fears of candidates such as Mitt Romney, who said, “"I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman" (see the WaPo campaign blog The Trail on Aug. 12). Romney was referring to a global warming question asked by a snowman at the Democratic YouTube debate.
Does Romney really have any reason to be afraid? After all, what difference it make if a kid with MacBook asks the questions instead of an experienced moderator if the candidates still respond with the same boiler plate talking points and are never held to their words?