It’s November already, and Christmas decorations have been up in the stores for about two weeks now. It seems everything is in fast motion these days, and that definitely applies to the world of politics. Come Sunday, it’ll be exactly a year before we head to the polls to elect a new president. Normally, that wouldn’t be big news in itself, except that it’s still very possible that the first primary/caucus/winnowing will be next month, in December 2007.

Despite the compressed calendar, the field is still somewhat fluid. No ballots whatsoever have been cast, yet we’ve had people throw their hats in and drop out completely and mumble about how they might run, or they’re not going to run (but not a word about accepting a draft), or they’re running, but they won’t accept the role of Vice-President (despite the fact that being Veep is a far more powerful job than the macabre role it once was).

So far it looks like the lineup is fairly firm, at least through January. But in the last couple of days, a new candidacy was imminent, and now has seemingly vanished in a blip. I’m speaking of course of Stephen Colbert, the comedian who wanted to run in the South Carolina primary. He initially stated his intention to run on the ballot under the banner of both of the titular big boys, the Democrats and the Republicans. He then changed his mind and said he’d run in South Carolina as a Democrat. A piece about his impending announcement ran online earlier on CNN’s website. There was already opposition from the big boys in the party:

Another council member, Charleston Democratic Party Chairman Waring Howe, was more blunt: “Over my dead body will Colbert’s name be on the ballot.”

Part of the uproar centered around the fact that each successful filing results in the state party paying the state election committee $20,000 per candidate. But what I found intriguing among all the dissension was that Colbert’s supporters noted that

the comedian will bring new, younger voters into the party fold … “I think a lot of people think it’s a joke because it’s a comedy show and what not, but he’s a nice fellow, and if he gets on the ballot, he will come here to South Carolina and campaign across the state,” said Charles Hamby, the second vice chairman of the state Democratic Party.

“We know he won’t be president. He knows that. But it will bring a lot of people into the party,” Hamby said.

However, yesterday the Palmetto State’s Democratic executive council decided to deep-six Colbert’s bid. One central objection was that Colbert would make a “mockery” of the political process. How could his candidacy be more of a mockery than a political system where state election boards act like children, trying to be first in line? How could it be more of a mockery when the media pays far more attention to a $400 haircut than they do to a President that puts “Iran” and “World War III” together in the same sentence? I certainly consider it a mockery when campaign finance reform is a sham and the big boys are the real powers behind the curtain. It’s a political wonderland out there: is Colbert Alice, or the Cheshire Cat? Would his “truthiness” speak volumes more than the “truth” we’re handed by political columnists and well-groomed talking heads?

Most news stories were like the one I just linked to: a short blurb downloaded from the AP, and stuck on the back burner somewhere deep in the middle of the paper. But here in Los Angeles, The Los Angeles Times ran a rather lengthy article about Colbert’s desire to place his name on the Democratic slate. In the piece, “Is There Truthiness to His ‘08 Bid?“, writer James Rainey observes that Colbert’s potential bid opens a Pandora’s Box related to his role on television and the guidelines the media and politicians must follow. Rainey posed a question: Does schtick count as constitutionally protected, and therefore unregulated, speech?

What’s far more interesting than this philosophical-political query is the fact that the state executive council noted that there is generally a two-part criteria for a candidate to be successful in filing papers: 1) the candidate must be viable nationally, and 2) must spend time campaigning in South Carolina.

In the Times article, Rainey notes that

One Republican polling firm showed Colbert (at 2.3%) drawing more support nationally than Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, although the differences could be statistically insignificant, given the poll’s 5-percentage-point margin of error.

To me, reading all these articles, it seems that Colbert is just as viable as Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and Ron Paul. In fact, the online magazine Slate isn’t even including Kucinich or Gravel (or Duncan Hunter and Alan Keyes) in its “Election Scorecard” section. Now, Slate isn’t the arbiter of everything political, nor is it the end-all or be-all, but it is interesting to note that there are different notions of who is viable and who isn’t. My thinking is that that choice should be left to the voters to determine “viability.” Certainly most people know that candidates such as Kucinich and Keyes stand no chance in the current system of achieving the presidency, yet the press and the people acknowledge them as “serious” candidates. Why not Colbert?

As for the second prong, Colbert has indicated that if his petition was accepted, he’d campaign in South Carolina at the very least. So as far as I’m concerned (and we all know just how much influence *I* have!), Colbert passes the test. He’s just as viable as anyone else. Despite what polls like to tell you, any one of those people who have filed papers could very well be standing on the Capitol steps come January 20, 2009. As Charles Hamby stated, Colbert certainly would attract attention to the political process, and perhaps pull in new voters from the previously disinterested or disenchanted.

What do you think? Should Colbert have been allowed to run as a Democrat in the South Carolina primary? Why or why not? Would you vote for him?