The Transcripts from the recent Democratic presidential debate held in Chicago,
Illinois, are comically entertaining at best and downright horrifying at worst.
One gets the sense after reading the transcripts of this debate that the top
tier Democratic candidates are willing to say just about anything to get
elected. Reading the very much-rehearsed scripts of Hillary Clinton and Barrack
Obama reminds this writer of recent episodes from a college bar, in which two
men battled desperately for the rights to bring home one girl. One man fed
her those types of pre tape recorded compliments like “baby you’re the
hottest girl in this bar” that every woman knows are insincere. The other man
just resorted to attacking his opponent’s personal integrity telling the
girl that he heard rumors that his opponent was a lousy lover in the bedroom and
hence could not get the job done. While the candidate’s animal instincts
may not have been quite as raw as those expressed by the two men at the bar,
the concept is still very much the same.
Like the man at the bar hurling disingenuous compliments in order to
get into the woman’s pants, Clinton likewise sweet talked the audience in
order to get into the voters’ pockets. Clinton said things like “who has stood
up to the right-wing machine for years.” She was also responsible for such
clever ditties as “I’m your gal” when emphasizing her “support” for
organized labor over the years. What Clinton failed to mention was that the very
interests that comprise the “right wing machine” (see the banking,
pharmaceutical and oil lobbies) that she has taken credit for fighting against have also
played an instrumental role in financing her campaign. As for being organized labor’s “gal” Clinton might have some serious explaining to do for her fervent support of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) passed back in 1993 under her husband’s administration. Obama, on the other hand, played the man at the bar who could “seal the deal” by attacking his adversary’s character. Obama criticized Clinton for being “vastly influenced” by corporate interests. He pointed to the large contributions she has received from the corporate lobby. If Obama was Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul (2 candidates who have refused donations from
corporate political action committees) his words might have carried some moral weight.

However, Obama is hardly the man of integrity that he describes himself
as being. He too failed to mention that while he was painting Clinton as a
servant of corporate power he himself had received the largest campaign
contributions from Wall Street to date. In the second quarter alone, Obama ledthe entire field of both republican and democratic candidates in campaign contributions from employees of the top ten investment banks. He raised
$739,579 compared to Clinton’s $ 424, 545 and Rudy Giuliani’s $330,000; almost as much money as Clinton and the top republican candidate combined!

Even John Edwards got into the act reminding the audience of mostly
organized labor supporters that he “stood with them in crunch time.” But when
asked a question later in the debate about possibly repealing NAFTA, Edwards
stopped short of saying it should be repealed.
The “players” have arrived at the bar and they all want to take you
home!

Recently I had the opportunity to speak with Mary Myers, a resident of Brentwood about Bill Richardson’s proposal to boost teachers’ salaries. Richardson vowed that if elected president he would move to establish a starting minimum wage of $40,000 for every teacher in America. Presently, the national average salary for all teachers is about $ 48,000. Richardson’s rational is that the implementation of a starting minimum wage would both draw better qualified teachers as well as boost the general morale of existing faculty.

Throughout the campaign season former North Carolina Sen. Edwards has depicted himself as the candidate of the people. While his populist rhetoric which includes his now famous “two Americas’ description of an economically unequal America and his sympathy for the “underdog” who “toils” but receives nothing; may be drawing Newhampshireites into his camp, we have yet to see if he genuinely believes what he is saying. Is he prepared to challenge the “entrenched interests” that he says control the heart and soul of American politics today or is his rhetoric a part of a demagogic ploy to pull on Americans’ heart strings in order to reach the grandest hall of political power.

Over the past week I had the opportunity to talk with Exeter resident, Caroline Amport about America’s healthcare crisis and the prospects of reform by the presidential candidates.

Mike Lenz: What is the most important campaign issue for you?
Larry Coskren: The Iraq war

The recent barrage of declassified records by the CIA revealing the agency’s illicit activity in the 1970’s, has received ample coverage from a wide range of media outlets throughout the United States. Not surprisingly, major newspapers like the Washington Post and the New York Times, radio news sources like National Public Radio, and television news stations such as MSNBC and Fox News have taken a strictly newsman’s approach to the revelations citing the details of the records which included the agency’s program of domestic spying, infiltration and blackmailing of dissident groups-especially anti-war protesters and anti-colonial movements.

First, the media pundits, party elites and the intellectual community seem determined (one might even say desperate) to anoint a front-runner from each party at this early juncture of the campaign season. Clearly, these elites who are beholden to the interest of corporate America, are trying to avoid another Howard Dean from emerging out of the shadows.

While the media has been in a near frenzy with regard to the prospect of Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City, entering the commercial fray that is the presidential campaign season, another potential third party regular has been largely overlooked. Ralph Nader, the 2000 nominee of the Green Party and an Independent candidate in 2004, has received very little media coverage in comparison to his wealthy counterpart.

While Bloomberg has received full-fledged profiles by the likes of the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Post in which all three publications highlighted his political accomplishments, his contentious relationship with and recent dramatic break with the Republican party and his views on issues such as gun rights, abortion and gay marriage; Nader, the veteran, consumer advocate, has received scant coverage.