Candidates will participate online via streaming video and questions will be submitted from the public over the internet.  No word yet on who will participate.

So, have we reached the utopian vision of democracy described by the founding fathers?  Or is this just another gimmick to grab attention in the over-saturated media.  I’d like to think that this is more of the former, but really it’s more of the latter. 

The campaigning for this year’s election has already gotten out of hand, with candidates announcing their runs extremely early using all the latest technological bells and whistles.  This is just another way to keep the candidates, and the election (as well as the outlets sponsoring the debate) in the media spotlight.

Maybe by taking advantage of the internet’s interactivity these debates will attract more young voters and encourage them to engage in the political process.  That’s my hope–but only time will tell.

Bush made the comparison yesterday during a tour of the oval office with a group of seniors and advocacy group leaders, coinciding with a meeting on Medicare’s drug benefit.   Obviously, this is a political photo opp—I am surprised that he would be so frank during this type of event (at which Iraq wasn’t even being discussed).

President Bush really believes that History will justify his unpopular decisions.  I don’t agree. Perhaps a better parallel would be Nixon’s administration, a man people still see as synonymous with “dirty tricks” and “liar.”   Lincoln was locked in a conflict that created a constitutional crisis for the U.S. and threatened the country’s existence.  Bush did not have the same imperative behind Iraq.  Much like his remarks last week, I think this is a big communications faux pas.  It comes off as arrogant and makes Bush seem like an egotistic simpleton.  

In the AP’s story, Bush states he would not sacrifice his principles for political popularity.  He’s quoted saying, “It’s a struggle for some.  It’s not for me.”  This brief statement, during a routine event, offers an enormous amount of insight into the way the President thinks.   

Bush has been increasingly vocal lately about his feelings behind his decisions.  I wonder if this results from recommendations from advisors, or whether Bush is getting sick of defending his administration and is just speaking his mind.

You shouldn’t run the government based on polls—but sometimes listening to the other side can help.  

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, who questioned Gonzales, felt he should resign.  He didn’t answer their questions, and the answers he did supply were misleading.  Yet, Bush called him, “Our No.1 crime fighter.”  OK.   Any credibility Bush had left has just vanished.

Loyalty is important in politics.  You don’t want to be seen as a fair-weather friend who will hitch his star to whoever the public likes that day.   Bush sees loyalty as the most important characteristic someone can have—and he intends to stay loyal to his friends.  But this is just political suicide.   He’s already facing criticism on so many fronts, he should just cut his losses and have Gonzales resign.  Guess what?   Your administration has already been irreparably undermined.  Might as well save face while offering your friend the opportunity to salvage a small bit of his dignity.

It seems as if the Bush Administration is operating in a communications vacuum.  They’re at the complete opposite end of the spectrum from politicians who design platforms based on focus groups and surveys.   They no longer care what the public thinks—or even their own party.  They feel that they have selected the right course and will not change.   While it’s admirable to see an institution refuse to be bullied by public whim, the President serves the citizens and should make an effort to consider public opinion.  Not doing so at this point just adds to the public’s disillusionment with the President, and makes our leaders seem even further removed from the people they serve.   Bush’s resolve has transformed into foolishness.

The AP today published a list of senior administration officials who have left as a result of controversy, or whose terms had been tarnished.   It’s a sobering read.  In addition to headline-grabbers like the Libby and Abramoff scandals, there are a number of less glamorous infractions, such as the political maneuverings of the Chief Administrator at GSA, that make you question the integrity of the administration.  

Sure, politics and scandal go hand in hand.  There have always been accusations and rumors about politicians.   But to reach the point when a national news wire is featuring a laundry list of your sins, you’ve lost control.  Ironic, considering how deft the administration seemed at pulling the strings in 2000.   Dirty dealings are common in DC.  Have we just reached a point in history where it’s impossible to hide them?

You don’t get to Karl Rove’s position by being politically inept.  But he seemed to make a rookie mistake at last week’s White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.   When confronted by Sheryl Crow and Laurie David on environmental issues, the President’s deputy chief of staff lashed out.  In a room full of reporters.   At an event that has, in the past few years, been covered heavily in the news media. In my humble opinion, that is not a good move.

In addition to being surrounded by the media’s most powerful eyes and ears, with today’s technology, no matter where or who you are, whatever you say can feasibly wind up online in some form.   This is especially true if you’re seen as the shadowy puppet-master of the current presidential administration.

Of course, Crow and David reported on the incident on the Huffington Post web site, and then gave numerous interviews.   Granted, Rove probably felt that it was not an appropriate venue to be confronted on policy issues.  But if you’re in the public eye, you should try and keep your cool.   Rove, and his handlers, should know this.  After all, just last month rapping Rove turned up on YouTube.  Nothing happens behind closed doors anymore and if you want to be successful, you have to remember that.

Maybe Rove is just tired from defending the administration’s actions.  Or cranky that the media keeps picking on his buddy Bush.   Whichever it is, I am sure his communications people are cringing and hoping McCain breaks out into song again soon.

There’s additional fall-out from McCain’s little tune—MoveOn.org has created a commercial about the incident to run in New Hampshire and Iowa.  The ad characterizes McCain as reckless and states this is not a good quality in a president.  Personally, I am a little more concerned about his lack of common sense. 

McCain is defending himself by characterizing his speech as a casual chat between him and some old friends, not a policy statement.   He believes everyone should lighten up and that what he did was not insensitive.

While, technically, it wasn’t a policy statement and, technically, he hasn’t announced his candidacy for President yet, he needs to realize that, especially these days, every word and movement will be recorded and analyzed ad infinitum.   He has to also consider context—to most people if it looks like a stump speech, and sounds like a stump speech, it probably is a stump speech.   He wasn’t sitting around his rec room with some buddies drinking a beer—he was making a public appearance.  It had to cross his mind that such a flip move would ruffle some feathers.   Who knows?  Maybe he was counting on it to get some press.  His numbers are sliding, but I don’t think this is the way to make them move up (although it seems that his outburst is popular among conservative bloggers).

If McCain wants to make a serious run for the presidency, he needs to play the game.  It may be inauthentic, but the public has been conditioned as to what to expect from the candidate.   They’re not going to accept someone who operates outside this norm.  I also think it is too easy for him to hide behind his “straight-talk” persona.   It seems like he thinks that he can say whatever he wants, and then brush it aside by claiming he’s just speaking to people in the heat of the moment.

The other thing that irks me is his claim that what he said was not insensitive.  I strongly disagree.   I am sure the families and friends of the military men and women in Iraq do not enjoy hearing this man speak so glibly about attacking another country, endangering the lives of their loved ones when they are called up yet again to fight a difficult battle.

In addition to McCain, President Bush got into the act today speaking off the cuff about the rug in the oval office, history’s perception of George Washington and the meaninglessness of polls.   He didn’t say anything offensive or, in fact, too out-there.  It was just odd to see an unplanned, unscripted moment.

Which brings us back to the beginning.  The reason for the growing game of “gotcha” with politicians is simple: modern technology.   Fifteen, 20 years ago we simply didn’t see it—it wasn’t reported on and, frankly, people really didn’t care.  We didn’t have the technology available to record every movement, distribute the footage widely, and view others’ material as well.   Now, we have the internet and You Tube. 

Sound bites and message points didn’t come into vogue until the Reagan administration and the birth of the gaping void that is the 24-hour news cycle.   It’s common knowledge—channels like CNN, MSNBC, and FOX News need content (which draws viewers, who bring in the advertising cash).  They’ll use whatever they can get their hands on, creating news where there is none.   These two factors alone create a world where we are all on stage 24/7 and there is no room for miscalculation. 

As much as I hate to admit it, these faux pas are just politicians being human.  We’d all be hard-pressed to stay on-message, all the time.   But with today’s environment, politicians need to be perfect, all the time.  I don’t think they need to become robotic generators of sound bites, but a little more care and thought behind their words would be nice.

Which is why I am at a loss to explain two incidents over the last week—McCain’s ditty about bombing Iran in South Carolina and Tommy Thomson’s ill-considered insight about money and the Jewish tradition in D.C. (To make matters worse, this occurred at the Religious Action Center for Reform Judaism, not the place you want to break out ancient stereotypes in a stump speech).   Much like Romney’s flubs in Miami last month, I am left wondering, where are the communications advisers to these politicians?

While Romney’s comments were obviously researched and rehearsed (which made his mistake even more incomprehensible), McCain and Thompson were most likely speaking off –the-cuff.   I applaud them for that—speaking in bullet points does nothing to educate people or encourage debate.  But, have they had any media training?   Have they been living under a rock lately?  I don’t care if you pride yourself on straight talk; anyone with a modicum of common sense would probably realize that a flip comment about money-making as part of Jewish heritage or singing about bombing Iran (a move with frightening implications) to a Beach Boys’ song is wrong.

Sure, there is a repetitive blandness to most of the ’08 presidential candidates’ messages, and we still have to endure many months before we actually get to do anything about it.   A blunt, shoot-from-the-hip approach is refreshing.  But these were just disrespectful and glib.  I would like to believe that the future leader of the U.S., or at least his or her advisers, would be more circumspect.  But maybe that’s asking too much

The story has potential—Democratic candidates are asked to spend a day shadowing a union member at work and at home.   So far, Edwards is the only candidate to fulfill his commitment—Clinton, Richardson and Dodd have also agreed to participate.  During his day (last Wednesday) Edwards worked with Elaine Ellis, a nursing assistant at a nursing home in New York state.  He met her at home at 5 a.m. and assisted the single mother of four with her duties throughout the day—even shaving a resident. 

My gut reaction is that this is just another photo opp; especially with a mass of photographers surrounding him and a camera crew from Good Morning America in pursuit.   How can that help Edwards truly experience a day in the life of a low-wage worker?  Wouldn’t it have been more effective if he did so quietly, without the media? (Who am I kidding—no one would give up an opportunity like this).  

And let’s not forget, the SEIU is extremely influential—all of the candidates want its support.  The union’s 1.8 million members are the classic Democratic base of hardworking individuals.  This is just as much an opportunity for the SEIU to flex its muscle as it is for Edwards to shine his halo.

Nevertheless, I do think it is a smart PR move.  A lot of people may, and should, question the authenticity of the experience.   But, I admire Edwards’ willingness to roll up his sleeves and actively participate rather than just doing so in spirit only.   The fact that Ms. Ellis contributed a first-person account to his blog is just the cherry on top for the campaign.

This was clever on Edwards’ part-especially taking into account criticism from the 2004 election that painted him and Kerry as aloof, elitist snobs.   If he didn’t get to truly inhabit Ms. Ellis’ day, at least he made an effort.  Isn’t that what we all learned to do in elementary school?  Just try?  Good for him.

Some people believe that John Edwards has made a big mistake–that he should put his family before politics and withdraw from the race.  But, according to the Edwards family, public service is more important–their duty to their country is a calling they must follow.  You have to respect them for that.   But I wonder if there is a right answer for this.  If he decided to leave the race, would he have been judged as not being fully committed to the office of President?  I really don’t think anyone would come out and say this.  However, I could see some (rotten) politicians using a similar angle should he run for office in the future.  It’s the Edwards’ decision, and if they are comfortable with it, I don’t think anyone has a right to question of it.  I respect them for the importance they place on public service.  It would just be nice if they could follow their hearts without their motives or family being questioned.

The announcement about Tony Snow’s diagnosis shows a more personal side of the White House and the tight knit group that supports the President.  I don’t agree with this administration’s policies and question the trustworthiness of many of its officials.  However, I was OK with Tony Snow and found the way he handled the press interesting, and sometimes entertaining.

Reading that deputy White House Press Secretary Dana Perino broke down into tears while making the announcement really affected me.  Not to sound trite, but it’s easy to forget that the administration is made up of people too.  It’s simple to paint the Bush Administration as this big nefarious monolith, working to push forward the GOP agenda.  That’s probably not for the best.

You don’t often see representatives of the Bush White House become emotional or shaken.  It was touching to see evidence of the close bonds between colleagues.  If we’re lucky, our coworkers become like family.  It’s obvious to see that these individuals care a great deal for one another and I can’t imagine how difficult it was to share this devastating news with the public while you were still dealing with it yourself.  But you serve the public, so you have to put the personal aside and move forward.  This is probably why many people question the Edwards’ decision–they are choosing to put themselves in the situation where their duty to the public may come before their family.  They are electing to possibly go through some very difficult, very personal times on a very public stage.  Most people wouldn’t choose this.

 My thoughts are with both Tony Snow’s family and the Edwards, and I hope for the best.

Most people probably identify with this experience–as you get older, you learn new things, meet new people and your views change.  It’s perfectly OK.  Actually, it’s respected–it shows you have an open mind, and are willing to listen and learn from those from different backgrounds or views.  However, this type of personal evolution is not tolerated in politicians.

Last week’s New Republic featured the article, “Flipping Off,” by Jonathan Chait, which looks at the political phenomenon of flip-flopping and how it can doom some candidates and be overlooked for others.  Specifically, he looks at GOP candidates Romney, Giuliani and McCain.  Both Giuliani and Romney have been called on the carpet for their changing opinions.  Both have changed their views on abortion and Giuliani revised his stand on gun control, while Romney re-evaluated his opinions on gay rights.

These decisions are now seen as marks against their credibility and trustworthiness.  It does not help that both governed traditionally liberal enclaves prior to this race, making it seem like they are just pandering to the majority.  But, apparently, these are minute in compared to McCain’s trip back and forth on the political pendulum.  Not only did he meet with Democratic leaders about switching parties, he supported legislation too liberal for some Democrats.  Yet, he is not called a flip-flopper. 

I find the argument that a politician is a flip-flopper to be ridiculous and cheap as a means of questioning his or her moral standards.  Oh no!  She is admitting she was wrong!  She can’t stand by her decisions!  We can’t trust her! 

I’d rather politicians admit their mistake.  Politicians (though we forget) are human too.  They grow, mature, and learn.  Even though they’re not young, impressionable teenagers, they still do not know everything.  Maybe they have seen something or met someone that has changed their mind.  I can respect that.  I welcome that.  Bull-headedness is dangerous in government.  You must have the fortitude to follow-through on your decisions, but to persist when you’ve been proven wrong is foolhardy.  At that point, you’re not serving the people, you’re serving yourself.

I admit, there are politicians who change their views just to get votes.  Was this the case for McCain?  Probably.  I think he definitely fits more comfortably on the left side of the aisle.  But, he wants to run, so he’s playing the game and embracing conservatism.  As for Guiliani and Romney, who knows?  Maybe they were doing what they felt was best for their constituents in that time or that context. 

Unfortunately, a lot of people take the bait and are easily swayed by the use of phrases like flip-flopper. In a perfect world, we’d have a government with more transparency and a better informed public.  But for now, flip-floppers beware.  We wouldn’t want you growing as people, now.  That would just be bad news.

Given the time that has passed, and the persistence of the story, it would seem logical that today’s politicians would take this lesson to heart and be very, very careful about using Berlitz catch-phrases to show that they embrace multiculturalism. Over the past twenty years, we’ve seen multiculturalism take center stage in government and business. Some have done it well: New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has a private Spanish tutor who he sits with for daily lessons. Unfortunately, it seems like there are many more who have just embarrassed themselves and caused damage to their campaigns by being over-eager and over-confident when embracing other cultures. Mitt Romney has joined this latter group.

During a campaign stop in Miami earlier this month, Romney stumbled over the names of local Latino leaders, used a phrase (in Spanish) that is a rallying cry for Fidel Castro, and quoted the film (albeit unintentionally) Scarface. Needless to say, his audience, and the community, did not find this amusing. Rather than portraying him as culturally sensitive, his gaffes only seemed to characterize him as just another ignorant white man in a suit.

I am sure none of this was intentional, but for a presidential candidate, it’s just sloppy. If you’re running a national campaign for the highest office in the land, you better know your stuff (or have someone on staff who does). Venturing into unfamiliar territory outside of their comfort zone is always a risk for you. But successful candidates (Bloomberg) hedge against this risk and make certain that their gesture is perfect and that there is no way it can be misconstrued or offend anyone.

If a politician is going to be working in or representing a diverse community (and the President serves the entire U.S., which is as diverse as you can get), his campaign has to know that community. His advisors have to be familiar with the group’s cultural touchstones, understand their history and be aware of different dialects and quirks of grammar or context. The Latino community is a big constituency in the U.S.–and growing–it pays to do your homework.

Which is what Romney’s spokesman argues. However, you’d think that a quote containing the phrase “fatherland,” and the word “death,” would have raised a couple of eyebrows. Or that some young staffer would have questioned a phrase that is well known as a quote from a popular movie criticized for perpetuating cultural stereotypes.

Usually politicians and government officials have a tendency of being too cautious—choosing their words so carefully that it dilutes or underplays their message. However, a little reflection would have served Romney well in this instance—hopefully he’ll be a wee bit more careful test-driving his foreign language skills in the future.