TV's funny man proves he has a serious side

“After nearly 15 minutes of soul searching, I have heard the call. Nation, I shall seek the office of the president of the United States.”

These words ushered in a new presidential candidate to the already crowded 2008 election. Was it a senator or governor or even a mayor? No. It was faux news pundit Stephen Colbert from Comedy Central’s Colbert Report.

Colbert ran quite an unconventional campaign to say the least. He was to run in only one state—his native South Carolina. The executive council of the state’s Democratic Party has since voted not to allow Colbert to seek the nation’s highest office.

Chairwoman Carol Fowler cited the candidate’s unusual style as the main motive behind the vote.

“He does not appear to be campaigning to win if he is only running in one state,” she said.

Later, on his own show, Fowler told him that he “was not ready to be president.”

So it now appears the man who a few weeks ago announced that he would be running in both the Republican and Democrat primaries will be in neither one.

This is only the latest in a string of events that has the 2008 election shaping up to be unlike anyone that has come before it.

According to a pollster.com survey on the upcoming primaries, the person with the highest percentage of votes is a woman. One of the top five Democrats hasn’t even declared yet.

Not to mention that we have already seen a record number of candidates drop before even the first of our nation’s primaries.

As a matter of fact, according to a Washington Post poll, Colbert was already in the top tier of Democrat candidates, beating out people like New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Rep. Dennis Kucinich, both of whom have been campaigning for months.

What does this say about the state of democracy here in the U.S.?

In an election year with so many candidates, why is it that there isn’t really one who is good? Is there a way to start all over or combine all of these candidates into one super president?

Where did Colbert stand in all of this? He had said he was running not to win, but rather, just to run. One has to wonder why he was trying to compete in this election. Perhaps it was all just a joke. It is certainly great publicity, but was that his main motive?

Did Colbert have a serious desire to be this nation’s commander-in-chief? Was he trying to make a statement?

One can only imagine what would happen if he were to win. Sure, he has never run a city or a state. Then again, neither has Hillary.

His campaign would be one based on popularity, which sounds like Giuliani. He’s an actor like Thompson. He is relatively new to the world of politics like Obama. He is not afraid to create controversy by saying what is on his mind, much like John McCain. He is an Emmy award winning “journalist.” As is undeclared candidate Al Gore.

Also, Colbert has been included in Time’s 100 People Who Shape Our World list, sharing that honor with Gore, Clinton, McCain and even the pope.

Our society has turned presidential politics into a ridiculous display. For the four years between elections, we have to listen to mudslinging and back stabbing.Are any of the candidates really that different from the others?

Sure, they have their minor differences, but it seems that most candidates within a party are basically the same.

They’re like different colors of the same car.

As for Colbert, I guess he is not that much different from the one whose running right now. At least he’s funny.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not endorsing Stephen T. Colbert for president, but I think he is making a great point.

To be president, it doesn’t matter what you know about being president, all you have to do is be popular and have money. After all that is the American dream, isn’t it?