Politics today

It's an interesting day in the world of politics. We have Obama talking about "muddy waters", Thompson talking about federalism, and Giuliani not talking about much of anything. Of the three, I'm most disappointed in Fred Thompson. While I enjoyed him on Law & Order, I'm learning that he was a better actor than a politician. He seems to be turning out to be a little too far right for my taste.

Now on to Obama. He is chastising Clinton and ignoring Edwards on the issue of lobbyists and their influence. I find his remarks to be somewhat refreshing and honest (two words that you are unlikely to ever see in the same sentence as the name Hillary Clinton). He talks about how it is silly (at best) to pretend that lobbyists will go away. They make their money and continue to thrive because they do serve a purpose. Just as there are lobbyists for "big oil" who are working to monitor and influence legislation that will affect the oil industry, there are also lobbyists who work for various non-profits around the country. In fact, one of the more powerful lobbies in New Jersey state is a lobby for the volunteer ambulance corps of the state. Who would campaign against the protection of volunteer ambulance corps?

Instead Obama seems to be leaning toward more disclosure and some restrictions on the "buying" of elections through excessive donations. I will wait to hear more, but Barak seems to be the most reputable and decent of the Democratic candidates thus far.

Now, my personal favorite is Rudy Giuliani. He is involved in a skirmish with the press and some members of the public who feel that all aspects of a candidate's personal life are fair game. I, for one, disagree with this. I would agree that if the candidate is found drunk in a gutter, in bed with a prostitute (or another person who is not their spouse), beating their children, or any other sort of illegal activity, that is news. Whether or not Rudy Giuliani is speaking with his children after a divorce, or whether or not he is a practicing Catholic is personal and has no bearing on his candidacy. I feel that the candidate (regardless of who they are) should only be forced to answer such questions if the person asking the question is also willing to go "on the record" with their answer to such a question and one follow-up of the candidate's choice.

Thoughts anyone?