President-elect Obama already facing big challenges

The American people spoke last Tuesday, and Barack Obama will be inaugurated as our next president in January.

The campaign was hard fought, and both he and John McCain must be commended for their willingness to put themselves through such a meat grinder.

Regardless of how a person feels about either candidate, both men deserve a tip of the hat for being willing to serve our country. After such a demanding process, it would be easy for the losing side to become frustrated.

However, all of us must pray that Obama becomes the best president our country has ever had. This doesn't mean that people can't be critical of him. After all, the right to criticize is an important element of any democracy and is a necessary component in the marketplace of ideas.

At this point, Obama needs everybody's support because our country is entering a critical portion of its history. The challenges we face are daunting, and strong leadership from the president will be essential.

There are lots of issues that most can point toward as important. Many want the Iraq War to wind down as quickly as possible. Because of his past position on this, Obama will be under intense scrutiny to bring it to an end.

Others will point toward social issues like homosexual marriage and abortion. Both of these are the defining social issues of our time, and the president will continue to play an important role in how they impact our nation.

This will be especially true if Obama gets the opportunity to appoint justices to the Supreme Court. It is believed that as many as three justices may be considering retirement.

If this happens, Obama will be leaving a legacy that lasts long after he leaves office because justices are appointed for life. It surprised me somewhat that there wasn't more discussion during the campaign about this, but then again, the Supreme Court isn't the sexiest issue to discuss when it comes to politics.

Usually, it only gets focused upon when there is a position to be filled, and that is a big mistake.

Additionally, near the top of the new administration's list must be developing an energy policy that results in America becoming less reliant on other countries to meet our needs.

It was only a few months ago when gasoline prices hovered around $4 a gallon, and local merchants were having difficulty keeping enough in stock to meet demand.

In the last few weeks, the issue has fallen off the radar somewhat because of a drop in prices. Locally, prices have dropped below $2 a gallon, and the nation as a whole has received significant relief.

As economic growth has slowed, this drop couldn't have come at a better time. Hopefully, this drop in prices will continue, but I'm sure that it won't.

The bottom line is we must become much more focused on domestic resources for our energy needs.

We can't continue to rely on countries that aren't necessarily our allies to help us. If we continue in this way, then skyrocketing costs for oil and other resources will return. It isn't a matter of 'if' this will happen, but a matter of 'when.'

After the intensity and pressure of the last year or so in politics, the next couple of months will appear relatively quiet. However, this will not be the case.

Obama will be making decisions on who will be serving in his cabinet, and those decisions will be among the most significant he will make.

Let's hope he chooses well.

Everybody vote on Tuesday....well, maybe not everybody

After months of angst and pressure, our presidential election is now only days away.

For those who enjoy politics, this is an exciting time because presidential elections are like the Super Bowl of politics. Of course, people who dislike politics can't wait for this whole process to end.

I always encourage people to vote on Election Day because I believe it is everybody's patriotic duty to do so. A lot of people have sacrificed and died just so we can go through this process every four years.

Additionally, it is often people who do not vote that complain the loudest about our government's problems. Those types of people really get under my skin.

They will moan and groan about the state of our country, but when it comes time to do something about it, they disappear. Often they hide behind the tired argument that one person's vote doesn’t matter, but that doesn't fly with me.

If a person can't find the time to vote, then they should just shut their mouths.

While I believe everybody should vote, my opinion on that recently got a jolt when I saw a poll on how uninformed most voters are.

The Pew Research Center for People and the Press conducted a poll that contained three basic political questions and only 44 percent of Americans could answer all three.

Here are the questions followed by the answers:

What is the controlling party of the U.S. House of Representatives? (Democrats)

Who is the U.S. Secretary of State? (Condoleezza Rice)

Who is prime minister of Great Britain? (Gordon Brown)

I guess I can forgive people for not knowing the prime minister of Britain, but it is inexcusable not to know the other two questions.

And, just think, the folks polled in this survey are going to be casting votes like you and me.

I know I sound elitist, but the results of this poll make me cringe because most voters haven't done as much homework on the candidates as I have. Scoff at me if you must, but if a person doesn't know who the Secretary of State is, then I know they don't know much about politics.

Still, there really isn't anything that can be done to force people to study the candidates more closely. Despite the tons of information easily available to voters, most don't have the time or motivation to study the candidate's positions on the important issues.

Remember, our government is a reflection of us. If our approach to voting is lazy, then we take the real risk of electing officials who are not competent.

Of course, we all whine and complain about what we think is wrong with government, but at the same time, we don't bother to learn who the U.S. Secretary of State is.

No wonder our federal government is bloated and inefficient. Many voters electing representatives aren't smart enough on the issues to cast an informed vote. Therefore, we wind up with what we deserve.

Over the last several months, I have repeatedly challenged the readers of this blog to do their homework when deciding who to vote for.

However, the results of this survey have left me quite discouraged. During the presidential campaign, many have said they are genuinely afraid of Barack Obama or John McCain getting elected. Both the options scare them.

Frankly, the thing to be scared about is that a lot of uniformed voters will be choosing who the next president will be.

Because of this, I probably won't sleep well for quite some time.

Vice presidential nominees' impact overrated

When it comes to presidential elections, one of the most interesting aspects of the race is the role the vice presidential nominees play.

After all, depending on who wins in November, Joe Biden or Sarah Palin will only be one heartbeat away from being president if something unfortunate should happen to the president.

However, the ironic aspect of this is that I believe very few of us take their qualifications into consideration when casting our votes.

Think about it: Will the choice of Joe Biden as Barack Obama's running mate make anybody more or less inclined to vote for Obama? Probably not.

I believe the same applies to John McCain. While Palin has brought some much needed sizzle to his campaign, I believe she will be a minor factor as voters consider voting for McCain.

While it's true Palin may help McCain attract some disenchanted voters who voted for Hillary Clinton during the primaries, this impact will likely be minimal.

However, Palin's emergence during the campaign has been fascinating. After an electrifying speech at the Republican convention, she regressed somewhat as was documented in her lackluster interview with CBS's Katie Couric.

Even some conservatives were debating whether she was the right choice and whether she was experienced enough for the big stage of a presidential election.

She put those fears to rest during her debate with Biden in which she clearly gained confidence as the event unfolded. The same snap, crackle, and pop she displayed at the convention were on display again.

Palin is a lot like Obama in that they both possess a tremendous amount of charisma that plays well on television. Both have been blessed with great communication skills that touch the hearts of people.

While the substance of what a candidate says should be most important, the style in which they present it is quite important.

During my lifetime, the two best communicators involved in politics on the national level have been Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.

Setting aside their political ideologies, their personal charisma was a big reason for their success. Both not only understood issues, but knew how to present them to citizens.

However, letting personal charisma impact how a person may vote for a president can be a tricky thing. Let's face it; it is easy to be mesmerized by the messenger while losing track of what he or she is actually saying.

As we enter the campaign's final weeks, it is important that voters demand specifics from the candidates regarding how they will tackle the important issues of the day.

When listening to Obama, McCain, Biden, and Palin, it often seems they are satisfied to say they will be an agent of change in Washington without elaborating on what that change will be.

The debates that have been held so far have allowed more specifics to be discussed, but the majority of voters don't tune in to these events. I fear most voters will take the easy way out and form their opinions through the tightly-controlled ways candidates prefer to present themselves.

From here to Election Day, carefully crafted commercials and personal appearances in front of friendly crowds will be how the candidates want to present themselves. Of course, this makes sense because both sides are deathly afraid of making any kind of mistake so close to the end of the campaign.

So, my challenge to you all is to not be satisfied with sound bites from the candidates that are designed to be the quote of the day.

Do your own work and study the issues.

How far is too far?

During any political campaign, advertising is a primary tool campaigns use to get a candidate's message across to voters.

I don't believe this is a good thing, but it would be naïve to believe that most voters take the time to thoughtfully consider a candidate's views on the issues. Maybe we are all too lazy, but there can be no denying the impact a well-crafted commercial can have on a voter.

When it comes to political advertising, negativity seems to rule the day. Attack ads often are the commercial of choice and many are as sharp as a surgeon's knife.

Recently, a commercial pushed the limits of what is acceptable in a political ad. A commercial financed by two liberal groups focused on John McCain's bouts with cancer.

The commercial claimed that McCain had not done enough to discuss the issue and called on him to release his medical records.

In classic attack ad style, the commercial showed black and white photo close-ups of McCain's face to emphasize the scars left by the removal of his melanomas.

When a group wants to go negative, they always employ black and white footage or photos to make the other candidate look bad. After that initial visual impression, they often conclude the commercial with a color photo of the candidate they are supporting to make him appear more appealing and attractive.

It isn't a sophisticated technique, but it is effective.

The commercial in question was turned down by several networks, but did air briefly on MSNBC. However, the ad was quickly pulled after an avalanche of criticism.

Even though I believe the commercial went too far, it did raise an interesting question. How far is too far when it comes to political advertising?

It's not an easy question to answer. Campaigns want to be on the cutting edge when it comes to getting out its message, but the margin for error is often quite small.

Obviously, the health of a candidate is an important issue, and McCain's bouts with cancer should be talked about. However, the makers of that commercial took an insensitive approach to a sensitive issue and got roasted because of it.

Of course, miscalculations like this are nothing new. In the television age, perhaps the most famous example of this was the 'Daisy Girl' commercial during the Lyndon Johnson/Barry Goldwater campaign in 1964.

The commercial was a pro-Johnson ad. In it, a little girl was shown in a field picking petals off a flower. Then the screen turned black and was followed by a blinding flash and a mushroom cloud from a nuclear explosion. A narrator then encouraged voters to vote for Johnson.

The commercial was yanked after one showing and generated a lot of controversy. However, it did nothing to stop Johnson's march to an overwhelming victory in the election.

As our current campaign trudges along, there will likely be more commercials that push the envelope. After all, the purpose of these ads is to generate publicity for a candidate, and these days, there appears to be no such thing as bad publicity.

Even if a special interest group takes a cheap shot at a candidate, the candidate that the commercial was supposed to help can often make himself appear more statesmanlike by denouncing the attack on his opponent.

As much as the public complains about negative campaigning, there is no denying that it works.

Negativity rules when it comes to political commercials. It says a lot about the candidates, but it also says a lot about all of us.

Remember to pray for our presidential candidates

Our presidential election is three months away, and for some, it can't come soon enough. Many folks are burned out on politics and want the campaign to end so they won't have to sit through any more speeches or commercials about why they should vote for a certain candidate.

I don't feel that way. I enjoy the give and take of our political scene, and presidential election years are especially interesting. Even though I won't publicly endorse a candidate, I do encourage all of you to study the issues and vote in November.

For reasons I can't explain, I believe the coming election is the most important one of my lifetime (I'm 43). As we move forward, we must remember to pray for all our elected officials, but especially those seeking the presidency.

Those of you reading this can follow your own heart regarding what you should specifically pray about, but make sure to include these people during your daily prayer time. If you don't have a daily prayer time, this would be a good time to start one.

Take this seriously.

'Politics of fear' alive and well in Campaign '08

One way to win people's votes is to scare the daylights out of them. It is a common practice used by both Democrats and Republicans.

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama recently provided an example of this in our presidential race. Talking to a group of seniors he said that Arizona Sen. John McCain would threaten the social security that they depend upon because McCain supports privatizing the program. In other words, if McCain is elected president, old people need to be very afraid. Read the rest of the story by clicking here.

Obama has positioned himself as the candidate of 'change' and 'hope,' but this example shows he can be a negative campaigner when it suits his needs. I don't mention this to be critical. I only mention this because this side of his approach does not get reported on much.

I'm moving to Philadelphia

The controversy involving gas prices in our country continues to grow, and it will likely simmer for a while because prices will not be coming down anytime soon.

Last week, I wrote about the role we all have played in this crisis. For years, we have developed an insatiable appetite for gasoline, and now it is biting us on the rear end.

We can blame the oil companies, OPEC, and the government all we want, but our demand for gas has created the marketplace we find ourselves in now.

During the last week, the debate on this has raged in both humorous and serious ways.

On a humorous note, a gas station owner in Philadelphia decided to sell fuel for 76 cents a gallon for 76 minutes as a tribute to the Philadelphia 76ers basketball team who recently made the playoffs for the first time in three years.

Predictably, cars began lining up hours before the sale began and about 100 lucky motorists got to take advantage of the man's generosity.

I've never been to Philadelphia before, but if this man makes an offer like this again, I may be visiting there soon.

Additionally, this issue has become a hot topic on the presidential campaign trail. Both Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton have pointed their fingers at the other regarding this mess.

Clinton recently criticized Obama for his support of a 2005 energy bill that she claimed had "billions of giveaways to oil companies."

Obama, on the other hand, has criticized the entire Washington establishment.

Recently, he said: "The candidates with the Washington experience -- my opponents -- are good people. They mean well, but they've been in Washington for a long time and even with all that experience they talk about, nothing has happened. This country didn't raise fuel efficiency standards for over 30 years."

I'm sorry, but it tickles me every time I hear Obama criticize the Washington establishment. Doesn't he realize that he is a big part of the Washington establishment by being a senator?

It seems that Obama wants to have his cake and eat it to. He wants to project himself as a Washington outsider when compared to Clinton and Republican Sen. John McCain. However, his success in the race so far is a direct result of his ability to exploit the notoriety he has received by being a senator.

If nothing else, Obama deserves credit for having a lot of chutzpah.

As for the gas crisis, it is time for the American people to take this issue into their own hands.

There has been some talk about temporarily reducing taxes on gas on the state and federal level to give us a break at the pump. However, I don't see this as much of a solution.

If the government did do this, there would be no guarantee that oil and gas companies would drop prices. Remember, drivers have shown a willingness to pay the almost $4 a gallon prices we are seeing. Because of this, why would those companies drop prices even if taxes are reduced?

The only real way to force prices to drop is for demand to drop.

If every driver committed to driving 10 percent less than they currently are, then prices would slowly drop. I'm no economics expert, but this is simple supply and demand.

If demand drops, then supplies will increase causing prices to drop so companies can sell their product.

The big question is whether drivers will have the backbone to cut back.

It's up to you.

Will we elect a rock star as President?

There have been a lot of interesting story lines to emerge during the presidential campaign so far.

Last year, pundits and pollsters said Arizona Sen. John McCain had no chance to win the Republican nomination, but he has pulled off a remarkable comeback to earn that party's nod.

Also, many believed former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson would become a frontrunner in the Republican race as the choice of the conservative wing of the party. However, he spent too much time deliberating about whether to run, and when he finally joined the race, his campaign generated little momentum.

However, the most interesting story line is easily the emergence of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. Whether a person supports him or not, the hysteria his campaign has generated is something that is not often seen in the political world.

I don't believe 'hysteria' is too strong a word. According to some who are covering his campaign, he is generating the type of emotion that is directed toward rock stars and not politicians.

It seems like in every election cycle there is rhetoric about the need for change, and at this point, many Democratic voters are looking at Obama as the person who can bring that change.

It's no secret that people are fed up with what is coming out of Washington. President Bush and the Democraticly-controlled Congress both have terrible approval ratings.

Obama has been able to tap into that discontent, and it is serving him well so far.

However, recent history shows that other presidential candidates have been able to successfully exploit this dissatisfaction.

For example, when the 1976 presidential race began, Jimmy Carter was nothing more than the obscure former governor of Georgia. However, he had good timing because his candidacy came when America was emerging from the stench of the Watergate scandal.

The fallout from the scandal was that President Richard Nixon resigned and several from his administration went to prison. Gerald Ford became president after Nixon left and alienated a lot of Americans when he pardoned Nixon for any crimes he might have committed.

Nobody will ever confuse Carter with a rock star, but he was able to use the discontent in the country to his advantage. He beat Ford in the '76 general election.

Unfortunately for Carter (and America), there was no happy ending during his presidency. The economy fell apart during his tenure, and terrorists raided the United States embassy in Iran and held Americans hostage for more than a year.

The general consensus about Carter when he left office was that he was a nice guy but a bad president.

Other recent Democratic presidents also had the ability to touch the hearts of voters in a deep way. For example, there can be no questioning that President John Kennedy did that.

However, I believe his presidency has been romanticized through the years because he was assassinated. After all, he won the election in 1960 with only 49.7 percent of the popular vote. He was far from a landslide choice.

The same goes for Bill Clinton. He won the 1992 election against incumbent George Bush and Ross Perot with only 43 percent of the popular vote. In '96, he was re-elected with only 49.2 percent of the vote.

As for Obama, it will be fascinating to watch how his candidacy plays out. He communicates well and has charisma. While those may seem like superficial qualities to consider when electing a president, there can be no doubting that America is superficial in many ways.

It is part of our human nature to be attracted to what is pleasing to the eye without considering the content of what we are pursing.

That is not meant to be a slam of Obama. It is meant to be a slam of voters.

Too often, voters take the easy way out when casting their vote. They don't study candidates closely and then complain when the results are not up to their satisfaction.

Regardless of who a person votes for in the general election in November (whether it is Obama, McCain, Hillary Clinton or whoever), my challenge to you all is to cast your vote based on the positions candidates take on the issues.

Don't take the easy way out.

It's never over until it's over

History is littered with people who faced overwhelming odds.

Whether it was David when he faced Goliath or the New York Giants when they played the New England Patriots in the Super Bowl, there are lots of examples of people who could have given up based on the situation they were in.

For other examples look no further than our current presidential race.

Last year, Arizona Sen. John McCain's bid for the presidency looked to be unraveling in its infancy. Key staff members left the campaign and most pundits predicted a quick end to McCain's bid.

The perception was that his campaign was in disarray, and as we all know, perception is one of the most important ingredients of political campaigns these days.

It doesn't matter what the facts are. If the perception of a candidate is negative, then he or she has a much steeper mountain to climb than other candidates.

In McCain's case, he found himself buried in the polls, and the future was bleak.

Fortunately for him, he did not fold under the pressure. He simply kept plugging along, and now he is the frontrunner for the Republican Party's nomination.

The fact that McCain did not quit should not have surprised us. After all, he spent years in the brutal hands of the Vietnamese as a prisoner of war during that conflict.

Whether a person is a supporter of McCain or not, he has to be admired for his resiliency during his Vietnam experience and for not giving up on his presidential bid when most said he had no chance.

He now has an overwhelming lead in delegates, and only has to deal with pesky Mike Huckabee between now and the Republican convention this summer.

A similar situation is unfolding for the Democratic nomination. Last year, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton had a solid lead in all the polls.

With the experience of the Clinton political machine behind her, it looked like smooth sailing to her party's nomination.

It would have been easy for other candidates to pack it in and begin focusing on running in 2012. However, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama didn't do that.

The more he got his face in front of the public, the more his personal charisma began to win over voters.

While some critics dismiss Obama as an empty suit, his ability to communicate is obvious. Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton both showed how important it is to have excellent communication skills.

People will never confuse Reagan and Clinton from an ideological point of view, but it cannot be denied that both understood how to communicate to the hearts of voters.

Some might claim that they both knew how to manipulate voters, but even that shows they understood how to present a message to the public.

As for Obama, his persistence has put him in a dogfight with Mrs. Clinton, and the race for the nomination likely won't be decided for another couple of months.

So, what can be learned from all this?

I started this column by stating that history is littered with people who faced overwhelming odds but continued despite that.

Most of the lives being led today are lives that will not be recorded in the history books. However, everybody at some point will face overwhelming odds in which they have to decide whether to give up or keep moving forward.

If you haven't found yourself in a situation like this, you will eventually. In all our lives, there is a season for everything.

We will all experience seasons of prosperity and happiness. But we will also experience seasons of angst and despair.

As surely as the sun rises in the east, we will all at some point face a moment in which the odds are against us.

The toughest decision is knowing when to keep moving forward or to retreat. As we all know, knowing when to retreat is often as important as knowing when to move forward.

Unfortunately, I can't provide you any special insight when faced with this decision.

All I can say is pray about it and do the best you can.

Tennessee key on Super Tuesday

Football's Super Bowl occurred today, but a political version of that will take place on Tuesday.

On Tuesday, more than 20 states will hold primaries and just a couple of months ago, it was believed that the results would play a big role in determining the frontrunner for the Democratic and Republican nominations.

However, this does not appear to be the case. The races in both parties are still wide open, and unless something unexpected happens on Tuesday, it will be that way as the campaign moves forward.

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama enjoyed an impressive win in South Carolina and has a lot of momentum. However, anybody who doubts the power of the Clinton political machine should think twice.

If nothing else, the Clinton family has shown they are relentless campaigners who have experienced many highs and lows over the years.

On the Republican side, it is a three-horse race. Arizona Sen. John McCain, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and to a lesser extent former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee lead the way.

The most embarrassed Republican at this point has to be former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. He skipped the early contests to focus on the Florida primary last Tuesday and failed miserably.

He placed a distant third, and his entire campaign strategy has to be considered one of the dumbest in recent years. It doesn't quite rank as high as when Walter Mondale pledged to raise taxes as the Democratic nominee in the 1984 election.

Of course, Mondale knew he was likely to get steamrolled by incumbent Ronald Reagan anyway, so it's understandable that he would try a risky campaign technique. Still, his approach was a stinker.

As for Tuesday's primary here in Tennessee, it is a must win for both Obama and Clinton. Both candidates have begun paying more attention to the state, but it is distressing that they are only focusing on the large metropolitan areas.

I guess that can be forgiven because so many states are up for grabs, but still it's a shame that they won't lavish attention on Tennessee voters like they did in New Hampshire and Iowa.

As for the Republicans, the race here in our state only became more interesting a few days ago. Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson would have been a shoe in, but he dropped out of the race after a poor showing in South Carolina.

Now, candidates are taking a greater interest in the state.

So, how should we approach Tuesday?

First, please go vote. I know I am stating the obvious but since tons of eligible voters don't do this, I felt it was worth stating. However, reader, since you have gotten this far into this column, I feel confident you have a lot of interest in elections and will do the right thing.

Of course, if you haven't registered to vote, then you can't vote in the primary. In this case, make sure to register so that you can vote in the general election in November.

Second, do a lot of personal research. Voters rely way too much on television and radio commercials when it comes to forming an opinion about a candidate. Many commercials are manipulative and don't tell the whole story. This is especially true when it comes to attack ads about another candidate.

Technology has made it easer than ever to find information regarding a candidate. I know it may be too close to our primary to do a lot of research, but the information is out there if a person is willing to do a little digging. Don't be lazy.

Last, don't pay attention to polls. Polls may help campaigns gauge voter sentiment, but the media tends to drown us with them. Polls subconsciously affect us when making a decision.

After all, how many times have you not voted for a candidate simply because you don't believe he has a chance to win? Paying too much attention to polls often drives that type of thinking.

Polls often aren't reliable. In this election, some polls showed that Barack Obama would beat Hillary Clinton by 10 percent in New Hampshire only days before voters went to cast their ballot, but she beat him.

Anything can still happen during this election.

The one question you must ask yourself is whether you are going to sit on the sidelines or get off the couch and participate. You can do that Tuesday.

The GOP race remains wide open

We are about one month into the presidential primary season, and the Republicans are no closer to selecting a clear cut frontrunner for their nomination than when the process began.

That isn't a bad thing. I've written before that the race for the presidency should be a marathon and not a sprint.

Both Democrats and Republicans have tried their best to condense the election process by frontloading the primary season. After all, more than 20 states will hold primaries on February 5 (including Tennessee).

I believe that is bad because voters need to see candidates exposed to the pressures of a campaign as much as possible. If nominees are established quickly, then they can coast their way to November.

However, that is not likely in either party this year, and that is especially so on the Republican side.

Watching the competition between the candidates has been exciting, and the results so far show us the race has a long way to go.

Arizona Sen. John McCain won New Hampshire and South Carolina. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney won Michigan and Nevada. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee won Iowa and placed a close second in South Carolina.

Nobody has been able to pull ahead of the pack.

The campaign has been aggressive, and because it has been so tight, the candidates have had to be on their toes.

Additionally, the presence of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani will finally be felt when the Florida primary is held Tuesday.

Guiliani's strategy has been risky. He has virtually ignored the early primaries and caucuses, and he got trounced in each of those states.

He is hoping a strong showing in Florida will springboard him to big wins on Super Tuesday on February 5.

Though it could work for him, I hate this strategy. Frankly, I believe it is an arrogant approach.

The other candidates have sweated blood while fighting it out in the other states, while America's Mayor has chosen to set his own agenda at the expense of the American people.

Voters need to see Giuliani in the campaign thunderdome to determine whether he is presidential material. He is blowing that opportunity by believing he can breeze on to the scene late and expect everybody to accommodate him.

My prediction is that he is waiting too late and won't be able to generate momentum. Timing is essential in politics, and Giuliani is proving that he doesn't understand that.

Ask former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson about that. Last year, the political scene was abuzz about him possibly entering the race.

However, he waited and waited and waited before making his announcement, and he lost his momentum.

By the time he announced his candidacy on The Tonight Show, the moment had passed him. He seemed like yesterday's news even though his campaign was only beginning.

Though the party's convention is still months away, one can't help but speculate what it will be like if the situation remains as it is. We could be looking at the first contested GOP convention in decades.

In the last couple of decades, both the Democratic and Republican conventions have become more and more irrelevant. Nothing of real substance happened.

Party nominees have been selected in recent years well before the convention, so this event has been watered down to a well-choreographed public relations event.

There was some drama at the GOP convention in 1976 when Ronald Reagan strongly challenged then-president Gerald Ford, but other than that, these events have been fairly quiet.

Perhaps the protests that occurred at the disastrous 1968 Democratic convention caused officials in both parties to more tightly control these events. The violence at that convention occurred when protests against the Vietnam War were at their most passionate.

The result was the Democrats came off looking like a party that couldn't run an orderly convention much less run the country. That event likely played a significant role in getting Richard Nixon elected.

The bottom line is the Republican race will have a lot more drama as the weeks unfold.

That may not make the leaders of the party happy, but it is good for voters.

And that should be what is important, right?

GOP race is a toss up but polls can mislead

As the 2008 presidential race heats up, we should all expect to hear more and more about polls as the weeks pass.

After all, polls are a primary way candidates and the media gauge how successfully a candidate is getting his or her message across to voters.

Though an easy tool to use, I believe polls are misused somewhat when determining the popularity of a candidate. I will elaborate on that a little more in a moment, but there can be no denying the emphasis that is placed on polls.

For those who enjoy tight political races, a recent Associated Press-Ipsos national poll shows the race to win the Republican nomination is quite close.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani led the poll with 24 percent. He was followed by former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson who had 19 percent and Arizona Sen. John McCain who had 15 percent.

The margin of error in the poll was 4.5 percent so it is possible the race is tighter than the numbers reported.

Or, then again, maybe not.

I have always been uncomfortable with national polls like this one. National polls are meant to reflect the percentage of votes a candidate would receive if the election was held on that day.

However, this is not the way we elect a president or the way Republicans and Democrats select a nominee. When it comes to the race to win a party's nomination, it is a state-by-state process in which the candidates win delegates to their party's convention next summer based on their performance in each state.

These national polls remove the state-by-state element from their findings. These polls are just a sample of voter opinions chosen from people around the nation.

Because of this, general national polls like the AP-Ipsos poll mentioned above cannot always be a reliable measurement of how a candidate stands in the race.

For example, in that poll former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was a distant fourth with only seven percent. Based on this, it would appear that Romney's campaign is taking on water and is having little success.

However, several polls in Iowa and New Hampshire show Romney is either leading or close to the lead in those states. This is especially important because these states are among the earliest to hold primaries or caucuses next year.

So which is it? Is the Romney campaign hopelessly adrift like the AP-Ipsos poll implies? Or is the campaign poised for great success early in next year's primary season?

If nothing else, successful presidential campaigns are about momentum. If Romney performs well in Iowa and New Hampshire, there is no doubt he will be considered among the top Republican candidates.

From there, it will be anybody's guess as to how he will do.

However, based on the findings of the AP-Ipsos poll, the perception that is being communicated to the general public is that Romney is currently an also-ran in the campaign.

If I were a Romney campaign representative, I would be hopping mad about how much airplay this poll got. Perception is reality, and if the perception becomes that Romney has no chance, then the leads he has in Iowa and New Hampshire could melt away.

This is just one example of how powerful poll results can be. We are a results-driven society, and in a long political campaign, it is sometimes difficult to measure the results of all the activity we see. Polls can be a good resource to measure results, but we must be careful how we use them.

America is a sports crazy nation so perhaps polls are so popular because it acts as a scoreboard. We love frontrunners, but at the same time, we cheer for the underdog. Polls definitely play a role in identifying who those folks are.

Despite the dangers of misusing polls, don't expect to see a decrease in them anytime soon. They are a staple of the media's political coverage, and campaigns can't seem to make a major decision without consulting them.

In a way, politicians have become slaves to polls. They are so afraid of making decisions that could hurt their numbers that they become tentative.

I don't know about anyone else, but the last trait that I want in a president is for him (or her) to be tentative.

Boldness is necessary in our leaders.