Running early might leave you winded by the end of the race

This year some political genius decided to start his canidate out early on the 2008 campaign trail. This means a new era in American Politics where we'll get to begin ignoring campaign ads even earlier than we have in the past. Oh what a brave new world we live in where the solution to people not caring anymore is to give them more of the same crap spread out over a longer period.

I want to start declaring right now who does and does not have a chance at office, but as my good friend James pointed out yesterday it is a little early to begin that sort of thing. For the next year or so it will be anyone's game.

The only thing I really see coming out of this is that now canidates have months to make some sort of silly faux pas that will make them the laughingstock of the voting public. Think John Kerry goes hunting or Micheal Dukakis rides in a tank only earlier and stupider. Of course with a longer period to commit these acts of idiocy in it could be that American taxpayers will just have more time to forget them or lose sight of them in the face of the latest scandal. Could we as a nation possibly have a shorter attention span?

Wait, what was I talking about again?

Taking a look at how campaigns have traditionally been run, candidates usually used primaries and the run-up to them to pander to their base and achieve the nomination nod. But with early campaigning and primaries being held earlier they seem to be stepping up their stepping out. Barack Obama for example made a comment which seems to be against affirmative action in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopolous. Hilary Clinton is catching flak from women of all people, some who think she's trying to be too "macho" by supporting the Iraq War. If the candidates aren't careful, they could end up alienating their base before primaries even get close.

If you need a reminder of how nearly impossible it is to secure the presidency without a party endorsement then I point to the glorious failure of Ross Perot.
George Washington did it, but he did have to single handedly win the country it's independence first. I understand his victory over the redcoats involved advanced mechanized tooth implants and an arm that converted into a cannon. My history is a little rusty though.

The problems aren't limited to the left. Republican candidates are undergoing close scrutiny by the media which could hurt them in the long run. Mitt Romney is having trouble with religion. As a member of the Jesus Christ Church of Latter-Day Saints (he's a mormon) he is finding that there's a fallout from long dead church dogma which allowed polygamy banned black people. He's also under fire for the church's anti-gay stance, but this has little risk since it is already part of the party base.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is having greater or equal troubles for his stance in support of abortion rights. This is a big no no if you're trying to court the GOP. Almost as bad are his wedding woes. It's hard to look like a secure family man when you've divorce twice already.

At the very least I think it can be said that the candidates, Democrat or Republican, don't plan on bombarding us with the same old party lines over and over in the next few months. But will we listen even if they're saying something different?