"Election" in Zimbabwe; The Emergence of the "PUMAs"; and John McCain's Waitng Game

Mugabe and His "Election": End to the Zimbabwean Campaign, Beginning of the International Campaign

Today, according to my intense calculations, Robert Mugabe will win the "election" in Zimbabwe. This is a hollow victory, as very few individuals are planning to recognize the results of the so-called election. Mugabe has led a campaign of violence that has forced opposition candidate Morgan Tsvangirai to not only withdraw from the race but seek safety from the Zanu-PF militias that are beating, torturing, and killing innocent MDC supporters throughout Zimbabwe.

The run-off held today was described best by Mr. Tsvangirai as Mugabe "desperate for the illusion of legitimacy." Zanu-PF militias rounded up Zimbabweans who would otherwise have boycotted the election, and forced them to vote. And, in the voting booths, only those prepared to face violence voted for Mr. Tsvangirai, because they knew anyone who voted for him would be tracked don and harmed. Plus, in what could be a conspiracy meant to drive me crazy, the American media barely even mentions it. MSNBC.com, a website that I use regularly, has only a small link on its front page, buried underneath pictures of the Obama/Clinton unity rally. On CNN.com, even in the international version, a small link reads: "Mugabe rival: Opposition rival intimidated." They would've put this link on their US front page, but too much space was taken up by these three particularly important stories- "3 teachers accused of sex with students," "Colorado stamp has Wyoming mountain," and "Review: Wall-E is a classic." Now, while I know the Zimbabwean humanitarian crisis doesn't have sex, mountains, or funny robots (the big three), I think CNN could've made some space.

Now, the question is what happens next? Will the UN impose sanctions against Zimbabwe's already broken economy? Will the AU attempt to pressure Mugabe to change his ways? Who knows, all we can do is wait.


PUMAs, Not Just Shoes

There has long been concern that the Democratic Party will not unite after the long, hard fought primary fray. Today, in an attempt to put their differences behind them, Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton appeared in an event in Unity, NH. The event was so steeped in symbolism, it was less of a campaign stop and more of a John Steinbeck novel. However, some are not impressed.

An organization, PUMA (Party Unity My Ass), has emerged as a group of Hillary Clinton supporters stubbornly refusing to vote for the man she lost to, Barack Obama. Most likely, these supporters will vote for the Republican presumptive nominee John McCain, however, some will vote for Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, or other third party candidates. Not only are these people just ignorant, but they are making a charade of our democracy. The only thing worse than someone not voting is someone voting out of protest or poor information. I can only imagine what the oppressed people in Zimbabwe who yearn for a functioning democracy would have to say to these people.

Another shocking thing about this group and people like them is the ignorance. A majority of the PUMAs are women, who are vexed over the purported "sexism" that led to the debasement of Hillary Clinton and her campaign. And yet, they are voting for John McCain, a man with a 1% rating from NARAL, indicating a strong anti-abortion stance. If, and this is a big if, John McCain gets elected and Roe v. Wade gets overturned, what will happen to all the unplanned babies that will be born to unprepared and unready parents just because the mom didn't trust Obama and his "lack" of experience. This election is about more than petty grudges, it's about the future. And, on the very, very, very off chance that a PUMA is reading this, shame on you.


Mac's Minatory Muddle

Republican presumptive nominee is digging himself into a rut. He is trying to attract both sides to his campaign, using nebulous language to describe his plans. Because of his problems with the conservative base, he is desperately trying to fashion a base out of mismatched sects of the political compass. However, as more comes out about his true beliefs, it will be fun (at least for this political junky), to watch these haphazardly formed alliances melt away like cardboard boxes in a thunderstorm.

All folksy similes aside, let's look at these various factions of the McCain coalition. McCain is trying to pick off indignant Hillary Clinton supporters (see above). He has been pursuing two groups: women and middle class whites. All Mr. McCain has said about Mrs. Clinton lately is how great she is, how hard she fought for women's rights, and how misogynistic the media is. However, I can only envisage how surprised these fairly liberal, mostly pro-choice women will react to, as I mentioned above, Mr. McCain's 1% rating from NARAL.

As for the working class, white, union members who so actively supported her campaign are now a little confused about Mr. Obama's patriotism and national defense credentials. Now, McCain is playing up his war record and his "chase bin Laden to the gates of hell," attitude and using the standard issue b.s. conservative attack against the liberal elite who want to spread gay marriage throughout the Middle East, after ceding half of America to al-Qaeda, of course. However, other than the fact that the complete second half of the last sentence is a completely false representation of the Democratic Party, McCain is attempting to run as one who cares about working class while supporting every free trade agreement ever, with or without environmental or labour regulations. This is quite the troubling fact for the union members fighting for their jobs. And, if he panders to them and adds environmental and labour regulations, he will lose the economically liberal wing of his party.

On a similar note, he is trying to walk the tight rope between the conservative free market solution and the liberal regulation solution. He is trying to please everyone all the time based on who he talking to at the particular time. However, he's not asking anyone or anything to sacrifice, and that's what it's going to take to reduce emissions. While profit motivates many people to innovate, there's only so far it can go. And, he advocates pouring oil on our oil addiction, which would help gas prices in only 5 years or so and destroy our environment starting the day we start to drill. It's just not happening.

It's also interesting to see him discuss the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. McCain believes that the reason why we should stay in Iraq is because the Iraq government is capable of carrying out missions on its own and is starting to function as a government. Fine, Mr. McCain, then, let's start to pull out and give them the responsibility of taking care of their own country. Also, he says he's strong on national defense and on terror, however, the terrorists are in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Taleban is resurgent and, with our resources being poured into Iraq, we do not have the money, man power, or equipment to arm the Afghan military or take them on ourselves. Obama understands this, Mr. McCain does not.

Finally, the final point. This one is particularly hilarious to me: the myth of McCain being a "deficit hawk." While it is true McCain defies the common practice of earmarking and has led the crusade against pork barrel spending, this money which he is trying to keep the government from spending pales when compared to the money we've borrowed from China to pay for the war in Iraq. Plus, as opposed to taxing the people with the means to pay for it, Mr. McCain is cutting their taxes, driving our deficit to all time highs. Now, with the deficit and China rapidly growing and the only think shrinking is the value of our dollar, who's paying the price for "economic prosperity": the American middle class. While I am firmly against protectionism and the economic policies brought up by Alexander Hamilton in the early days of our country (the American School), they do bring up a point: deficits are fine only if you have the means to pay them off. If we want to go into the red, that's fine, but we better be able to pay it off through not only cutting government spending, but raising a few taxes too.

Anyway, all I'm saying is, as soon as all these facts come out, we're going to see the McCain campaign crash and burn and it may be anywhere from a 20 delegate win for Obama and a complete blowout, up to a 100+ delegate wash, very 1964-esque.

Nelson Mandela Speaks Out; and Ralph Nader Seeks Attention

Mandela Mauls Mugabe


Today, for the first time, former President of South Africa Nelson Mandela spoke out against the controversial actions of Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe. In his description of the crises, he talked about "the tragic failure of leadership" of Robert Mugabe. This adds to the calls of South African leaders to postpone the June 27th run-off due to the violence plaguing the campaign. Like many other leaders, Mandela has been tentative about speaking out against the violent campaign of Zanu-PF loyal militias against fellow Zimbabweans.

Once regarded as a hero of the struggle for independence in Africa, Robert Mugabe has ruled Zimbabwe much like a dictator. As his country has spun into turmoil, Mugabe has clung on to control, blaming colonialists like Britain for all of the problems even the hyperinflation that has destroyed the once booming economy of Zimbabwe. However, the international community seemingly has had enough. Virtually every nation is calling the election a sham, and nothing epitomizes this change of heart more than Britain's stripping of an honorary knighthood given to Mugabe.

Call me a cynic, but all I can think of when reading of various international condemnation of Mr. Mugabe is... what took so long?!?!? Where was Mr. Mandela when various leaders, including Morgan Tsvangirai and Tendai Biti, was arrested numerous times before the election? Why wasn't Mr. Mbeki more involved during the more than a month's time that passed before the "official" results were released? While the old saying goes "better late than never," I fear that the situation has spiraled too far out of control for the international community to control.

The Last Act of a Desperate Man

During his lifetime, Ralph Nader has led a distinguished career. He has been a fierce advocate for consumers' rights, a man standing up for ordinary citizens, and, less pleasantly, a spoiler. While I disagree with him on many counts, he has always been a respectable man. However, in recent years, he has become desperate for attention, doing anything for media spotlight. And today, Mr. Nader went after Barack Obama, accusing him of "talking white," meaning he has ignored issues pertaining to the African American community like predatory lending and the overall inequality in the U.S. economy.

What Mr. Nader fails to realize is that Obama has in fact talked about these issues. He has talked about the need to alert consumers of the risk involved in taking loans. If you don't believe me, http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#credit-cards, look it up at this location, or just remember his speeches dealing with these exact issues.

If Barack Obama has talked about the issues, then why would Ralph Nader need to distort his record? The answer is a hard pill for Mr. Nader to swallow. His campaign has failed to gain traction and he longs for the spotlight of his suprise campaign in 2000. His status in American politics is waning, as anti-establishmentarians are abandoning him for libertarians (in my mind, crazies) like Ron Paul and Bob Barr. And, with his rapidly decreasing stature, Mr. Nader, a once respected fighter, has stooped to the very level of politics he once fought against, and that is just deplorable.

Coup d'etat

Hello everyone! I'm the younger brother of the former author of this blog. He was ousted in a bloodless coup over the weekend, and I ascended to power. Disgraced, Balke said "I can't wait to see your blog! What an improvement it shall be. Go get em'." The New Mexico Progressive will stay on the same track, witht the only difference being that I am not a young political activist blogging for change. I'm just a teenager blogging for the love of all things politics. Now, onto the top story of today.


Bubba Finally Comes Around

Today, former President Bill Clinton embraced (indirectly) the candidacy of Barack Obama. He couldn't have done it in a more timely fashion either. He only waited 17 days after his wife dropped to endorse the presumptive Democratic nominee. His spokesman, Matt McKenna, issued a one sentence statement that read "President Clinton is obviously committed to doing whatever he can and is asked to do to ensure Senator Obama is the next president of the United States."

Clinton's role in the campaign is the subject of the current debate in the Democratic Party. The former president is still extremely popular from his two terms in the White House, particularly amongst working class whites which would help Barack Obama who has struggled with that demographic. This advantage would help in the swing states of Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Furthermore, his keen political instincts would also be very valuable to Senator Obama as he goes up against a desperate Republican Party.

However, there are many downsides to an increased role for Clinton in the campaign. During his wife's primary campaign, he proved to be reckless and uncontrollable. Several of his statements sparked controversy and he alienated African Americans, a major voting bloc in the Democratic Party. In addition, his shady overseas business deals and his refusal to give up the donors to his foundation and presidential library are another roadblock to a role in the campaign. Finally, the very fact that he represents the past directly conflicts with Barack Obama's promise of change.

That's it. Enjoy! There's more to come, maybe.

Signing off--at least for a while

So long...for now:
As part of my fellowship with the Barack Obama Campaign, I'm not permitted to offer open political commentary in the form of a blog. This, I think, is a perfectly legitimate expectation on the campaign's behalf, as it would be nearly impossible to track the comments of thousands of staff across the country and, as a result, ensure that each is maintaining comments in line with the campaign's message.

Still, it does mean that, at least over the next five weeks, the New Mexico Progressive will take a breather. We appreciate your readership and can't wait to report back to you in late July and early August on all things political as Election Day approaches!

Cheerio,

--The New Mexico Progressive

Off and running with the Obama Organizing Fellows

NM Fellows Pick Up Steam:
I am off and running on my fellowship with the Barack Obama campaign. The campaign has begun an initiative called the 'Obama Organizing Fellows' program, which is comprised of 3,600 activists from across the country, who will spend the next six weeks of their lives organizing for, and supporting the activities of, the Barack Obama campaign for president.

Here in New Mexico, there are just over 41 fellows, with a roughly even split of those native to the Land of Enchantment and those from as far away as Washington, D.C. and New England. After three days of initial training in Albuquerque (today, Monday, represents day three), we will deploy with out small groups (roughly ten folks) to specific regions of the state. My team will be based in Las Cruces and other areas around Southern New Mexico, including, but not limited to, Hobbs, Roswell, and Carlsbad. I'm particularly excited about the opportunity to organize for the Obama campaign in Las Cruces, given that I grew up there and feel I have a good understanding of the area's political dynamic, which will enable me to better support the Senator's efforts therein.

Our responsibilities as Obama Organizing Fellows are multi-faceted. Our top priority is to recruit, train, and retain volunteers. There is absolutely nothing more essential to the victory of the campaign in November then recruiting and training volunteers today, and that will be a key priority for Fellows in the days and weeks to come.

More immediately, our efforts center around voter registration. Each week, we'll work with our small groups to hit our 'numbers', that is quantifiable goals for the number of new voters we register, or folks who've recently moved to, or from another place within, New Mexico and now need to re-register (we will also work to reach 'number' goals in terms of the number of volunteers we recruit, as well as the number of volunteer 'shifts' we fill).

Also, one of our first projects as Fellows is organizing and then implementing to 'Obama Unite For Change House Parties', which are set for Saturday, 28 June. The goal of UFC House Parties is to bring together Obama supporters, former Clinton supporters now supporting Obama, independents, and even Republicans who are tired of their party's performance in the White House and like what they hear from Barack. At the meeting, we'll engage in a group discussion about the issues we feel most important in moving our country in the right direction, as well as specific things we can do to help elected Senator Obama in order to forge that better future we would all like to see.

Moreover, the parties will serve as an event for folks to commit to volunteering for the Obama Campaign and, more specifically, engaging in a voter registration drive in their community on the 4th of July. A critical responsibility of mine in organzing the UFC House Parties is recruiting a host that can bring in a dynamic, politically-engaged group of attendees whom would be likely to get out there and work for Senator Obama. Ideally, each meeting will have 20 participants, not including me or the host, but I would certainly like move that number up by at least 25 or, perhaps, 50, percent. I've already initiated the process of identifying and reaching out to hosts I think would be particularly dynamic. My top prospects are local elected officials, who, formerly, strongly backed the candidacy of Hillary Clinton.

As a supporter of Barack Obama, one of the most important efforts I think we need to engage in at this point as we court victory for the fall is reaching out to former Clinton supporters and beginning a discussion on all the things that unite us as progressive citizens. During the primary campaign, the media focused the bulk of its attention on the difference between Senators Obama and Clinton, but I, and most, know that there exists far more that connects these two leaders than divides then, and, in the form of the UFC House Parties, I believe an exciting opportunity presents itself to start the discussion of reconciliation between Obama and Clinton supporters across the country.

All told, I'm loving my fellowship experience thus far. Not only have I might an outstanding group of dynamic activists from all walks of life and a wide range of locales, but I also feel that my work as an organizer will be particularly important in an election that could turn on one or two states. With New Mexico representing one of the most critical swing states around, any efforts that increase the turnout for Senator Obama on Election Day stand to play a significant role in determining to whom the Land Of Enchantment's five electoral votes go. I, for one, plan to work with all my passion, intelligence, and exuberant flare for progress to see to it that our home is, for once, neither red, nor green on 04 November- on that day, I hope, we'll be solid blue.

Irish Vote Down EU Lisbon Treaty

Irish Voters Say 'No' to EU Integration Pact:
Voters in Ireland, yesterday, considered the recently concluded Lisbon Treaty, a pact that would strengthen the institutions of the European Union and unite the continent's countries' political, commercial, and security endeavors in an unprecedented manner.

Much to the dismay of my brother, Padraig, whose real name, Patrick, has shifted to its Irish counterpart in light of the country's recent surge in attention, citizens of the Emerald Isle voted down the pact, becoming the first of 15 European countries to give the deal a thumbs-down. Ireland, moreover, was the only country in the EU to consider the Lisbon Treaty by way of a country-wide referendum, which, of course, ran the risk of leaving the decision of whether or not to pass the deal up to voters who may not have been informed as to precisely the impact it would have on their lives.

Indeed, media reports (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7453560.stm) have suggested that thousands of voters who ultimately cast their vote 'no', did so largely because of lingering questions regarding what the pact would actually entail. This, of course, was a risk known to policymakers as they took the bold step of selecting the referendum as the method by which Ireland would way in on the EU deal.

Still, while the country is to be commended to leave such a significant decision in the hands of the populace, the result of Thursday's ballot, I believe, is disadvantageous for the island state and evidences that officials must do more to fully educate voters on the finer points of referendum issues.

As my brother shows in a well and passionately written piece below, integration into the European Union has been a boon for the Irish economy, with the country's economy growing at the fastest clip in the continent for the better part of the last 15 years, before slowing last year. Corporate tax reductions, coupled with the unifying facilitation provided by EU membership, drew a wealth of foreign direct investment from countries across the continent into Ireland.

Moreover, lax immigration rules established by the pact, which encourage the movement to Ireland of laborers from sluggish economies in places like Lithuania, Romania, Poland, and other Eastern European coutnries has provided Irish employers with cheap labor, giving them an advantageous way in which to advance their operations. These rules, coupled with the appealingly low corporate tax rate also encourage foreign multinationals to set up shop in the Emerald Isle, bringing with them a swath of well-paying jobs for the country's citizens.

So, why, then, would Irish voters turn down a pact that would seemingly intensify the process that has ushered in a new wave of economic prosperity by a sturdy six point margin. The answer, it seems, lies in the reality that many voters, rightly or wrongly (in fact, often rightly and sometimes wrongly), still vote with their hearts and not their heads. When I visited Ireland last summer, there was a great deal of talk amongst the folks with whom we conversed about the detrimental impact that the flood of Eastern European immigrants was having on Irish culture. There are rumored to be as many as one million Polish migrants alone inside of Ireland, and the total number of those from other countries isn't far behind. While economists seem to agree that enough jobs exist to account for this rush of new labor and that their presence significantly bolsters the domestic economy, it is equally as clear that newcomers do not so quickly drop the cultural practices and customs of their homeland.

My question, however, is how could, and why should, they. Indeed, this seems to be one of the finer points of globalization that its most vehement proponents often miss. As the Jihad v. McWorld dichotomy explores, a zero-sum game, or cultural tug-o-war exists as globalization brings disparate countries ever closer, while different cultures simultaneously cling more tightly than ever to their unique ideals and traditions.

Indeed, as ideas, goods, and even people cross national borders with increasing ease, groups in countries across the world, developed and developing alike, feel threatened that their ability to retain that which makes them independent might be weakening. And don't we see this when we think about parts of the Muslim World, whose violent backlash to the spread of Americana no doubt constitutes a not-so-veiled attempt to strike back against the imposition of Western ideals on their everyday existence. Or how about in Israel, where citizens seem exceedingly willing to open up their country to, and become a more significant part of, an increasingly global economy, while providing Arabs living within their country a more genuine place within the national narrative seems out of the question.

Yet, as the Irish vote on the Lisbon Treaty powerfully demonstrates, the Muslim and Jewish Worlds do not represent the only places in which cultural sensibilities often trump people's desires to open up to a broader world, a reality that extends to the ballot box, as well. In Ireland's Treaty vote, we see people voting down a measure in order to fight something they see as a threat to their culture and their life as an Irish nation in its purest form. Despite the fact that the improved political, economic, and security conditions that the Lisbon Treaty may engender would better enable Irish citizens to celebrate and share their culture, they have given the old '86' to a deal they saw as no good for national heritage.

Padraig, perhaps, if given another shot, those in the Emerald Isle will reconsider (again, see below for my brother's commentary).

Padraig's Piece:
I don't care what Gerry Adams or Declan Ganley says, it's not a good day to be Irish. With this vote, the future of a more powerful and united EU is in jeopardy. The European Commission said today that other nations should continue to ratify the treaty, but Czech President Vaclav Klaus said that ratification could not continue now. Maybe it's just the fact that I do not live in Ireland and in my extensive research I have missed the hidden anti-Irish laws of the EU and the Lisbon Treaty, but I am absolutely baffled that it would be Ireland that would be the bulwark (good word, eh) to the new EU. Ireland. IRELAND!

Ireland is arguably the country that has most benefited from the EU. Remember, it was further integration into the EU and the switch to the Euro that helped unleash the Celtic Tiger, parts one and two. In the 1980s, the economy of the Republic of Ireland was absolutely horrendous. High borrowing, unemployment and tax rates led to the Irish economy becoming the laughing stock of Europe. Soon, however, the economic climate began to improve partly thanks to increased EU investment in the country. Ireland's economy surged and it soon became one of the richest countries in the world and the incomes of its citizens surpassed some of its Western European counterparts And, while Ireland's economy has been susceptible to global economic trends, it remains strong with predictions of 5% growth in 2010.

So, why did the Lisbon Treaty fail to pass. www.lisbonvote.com The only way I can explain the failure is the misrepresentation used by the No campaign. While every major party supported Lisbon, unless you consider Sinn Fein to be a major party, there was a very extensive campaign to paint a message linking the new EU to a New World Order which would take all the power away from the Irish people. Unfortunately, this populist, nationalist, isolationist, etc.-ist has worked and the future of the EU is in limbo.

I leave you with an Irish blessing

May the road rise up to meet you.

May the wind always be at your back.

May the sun shine warm upon your face,

and rains fall soft upon your fields.

And until we meet again,

May God hold you in the palm of His hand.

Tim Russert's Sudden and Tragic Passing

Russert a Modern Journalistic Hero:

The Sudden Fall of a Media Icon

At 58 years of age, Tim Russert has died. His passing was sudden and came just a day after he returned from a family trip to Italy, where he was celebrating the college graduation of his son, Luke. Condolences immediately swept in from all ends of the political spectrum, as President Bush and White House contenders Barack Obama and John McCain issued statements to commemorate the loss of this media titan, considered by many to be the preeminent political journalist of his time.

Meeting Russert in Iowa:

When I reflect on Russert’s passing, my mind immediately comes to the night I met him earlier this year on a frosty night in Des Moines, Iowa, as I staffed an Obama Rally at Hoover High School, less than 24 hours before caucuses opened in that state’s historical contest. I and other campaign workers were busy welcoming and shuffling in the final arrivals to Obama’s final speech before Caucus Day, when a young man, who looked to be in his early 20s, asked me if I would take a picture of him with his dad. I, of course, said that I would and turned around to find a casually dressed and high-spirited Tim Russert smiling and putting his arm around his son, whom I later found out was roughly my age and named Luke.

What struck me most about Russert was that, in this moment, he seemed like less of a prime-time political journalist than a simple fan of politics, basking in the excitement of a candidate and campaign that comes once in a generation, if that. I’ve long senses that Russert, like many of his colleagues, supports Obama. I feel that he was a man who, more than anything, loved his country and longed to see it head in a new, better, and more hopeful direction. He saw Barack Obama, I believe, as representing precisely the type of change agent necessary to get the country moving in the right direction. I left that encounter and my trip to Iowa, more generally, delighted to have had this personal encounter with a person for whom I hold a great deal of respect, not only for his professional expertise, but for his compassion, kindness, and dedication as a family man.

An Ordinary Person with an Extraordinary Mission:

Russert was born in 1950 and throughout his life was, if nothing else, a fan of all things Buffalo, his hometown. Fans will remember his consistent and often unrealistic predictions of Bills Super Bowl glory, as well as the down-to-earth attitude with which he approached his work.

More specifically, however, Russert will be remembered by former interviewees and colleagues as someone who absolutely loved politics and was unparalleled to the rigor with which he approached his work as a journalist. This year was said to have been particularly exciting for the former Democratic activist, as the historic primary battle between Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton drew millions of new voters to the polls and forged an excitement surrounding politics rarely seen in the United States.

Russert got his start in politics soon after completing law school at Cleveland State University, working for the campaigns of former New York Governor and Democratic presidential candidate Mario Cuomo, as well as long-time New York Senator and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, also a Democrat. Following his campaign work, Russert served as Moynihan’s chief of staff in the Senate and gained a reputation as a passionate, forceful Democratic activist.

Meet The Press:

In 1984, Russert went to work for NBC as a political commentator. In 1991, he took the helm at ‘Meet the Press’, the network’s long-running (in fact, it’s the longest running show in the history of television) Sunday morning political talk show. Russert quickly established himself as a tough but fair questioner, working above all else to force candidates to reveal what was truly on their minds.

Russert was also distinguished by his efforts to make politics make sense to the average voter. He is reported to have claimed that he knew he was doing a good job if, while watching ‘Meet The Press’, the ‘folks in Buffalo’ both understand what was transpiring, as well as learning more about political issues. Interestingly, until recently, Russert was a virtual no-show as a moderator of high-level debates, though he did fill this role on occasion during the ’08 primary season.

Tenacious Inquirer:

Some candidates, I’ve learned, feared Russert’s fierce questioning and were loathe to have him put them on the spot in a television, let alone, debate setting. In 2000, for example, during the lead-up to Hillary Clinton’s initial campaign for the U.S. Senate, Russert served as moderator for a debate between Clinton and her Republican challenger, Rick Lazio. The boisterous journalist from Buffalo spent his evening swiping at the candidates, but doing so in an honest, reasonable manner, which forced the candidates to articulate their platforms in a way that would allow voters to make informed decisions about the two at the ballot box. Several of my friends at George Washington University who majored in political communication often recalled watching this debate as the model of how journalists and candidates (both Clinton and Lazio were in good-form) should perform during campaign debates. Putting candidates on the hot seat and forcing them to give meaningful answers to difficult questions, I reckon, should be seen as the true job of any political journalist.

Moving Forward:

Tim Russert is not replaceable. However, his passing does leave an immediate void in NBC’s Sunday morning political repertoire that need be filled. Personally, I would like to see MSNBC Chief Political Correspondent Chuck Todd (with whom my brother is quite enamored) take over the helm at MTP. Still, no matter whom is tapped to fill in for the Buffalo boy, there will simply remain a void that will linger on the airwaves for some time. Today, we mourn the loss of a titan and, most importantly, a good man.

Tim, we’ll miss you. This year, we’re all Bills fans.