Seriously... are we to think that if we don't want every major politician to be a professional who has been Macbeth (or lady Macbeth) every day since first grade, through the obligatory law school, that we should start electing professional comics without regard to any of their career accomplishments?

There have been MDs who ran for office, actors, businessmen, foreign affairs professionals, civil servants, military men, scientists, explorers (ok, astronauts) and so on. We have judged them sometimes by the quality of their accomplishments - in their respective fields - and the sensibility of their public pronouncements. Nader got to have a serious candidacy because he spent a life fighting for the 'little guy' - whether you agree with his methods and aims or not, at least he did something serious, and did it energetically.

We ought to consider a person's achievements when we elect them to high office - whether they were farmers or businessmen or lawyers, they need to have done their jobs in a respectable way, supported good people and done good things, and we shouldn't have to ignore their life up to their campaign.

Franken has been an angry looking crank hiding political jabs behind the title of comedian for a long time. I would sooner vote for Jon Stewart or S. Colbert, who have a pleasant demeanor, than for Franken, or Lewis Black, for example.

If people don't vote for him, it could legitmately be because they believe he believes what he says - or simply because he is a democrat running for congress, which is almost a guarantee to make him even less funny, while he continues to say rediculous things.

Nader had a serious candidacy? He peaked at 4%.

In a national presidential contest, several percents makes a serious campaign.

Ask Al Gore if those 4 percentage points of Nader's made a difference?

BenK, just wondering, have you heard any of Franken's political speeches? Do yuu know what his positions are? Have you read any of his books? (I happen to love "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot", if only for the fact that it got the old druggie a little up in arms).

The point is, if you read his stuff, or listened to his Air America show, you would know that the man is smarter than most of the "jokers" we've got in congress right now. Sure, he mixed comedy bits in with the coverage of important issues, that was the point. At the time, there was so little option of competing messages, and it made sense for him to play on his history as a comedian.

But make no mistake, he understands the issues he talks about, and unlike so many on the right, will actually take the time to do research and find facts, rather than anecdotes and homilies to support his case.

But as the author states, the false umbrage, which Steven Colbert does so well, even though he seems a little understated compared to O'Reily, Limbaugh, et. al.

As for his accomplishments, he's done MANY tours for the USO (too bad I'm in Kuwait while he's campaigning) and worked for other charities as well.

If a middle-brow, astrologist marrying, union-busting former union president, washed-up actor can be PRESIDENT, I think Al deserves a shot at the Senate.

Let's hope that the citizens of Minnesota realize that Coleman, who got elected on a veritable wave of false umbrage about Sen. Wellstone's memorial service, is the real joke here. They went from having one of the Senate's most incorruptable, to just another Republican party hack. Franken is trying to honor Wellstone's legacy as a progressive, not just oppose Coleman.

He would be a tremendous asset to the Senate, and would probably triple CSPAN's ratings when hes on.

Cheers,

This "accomplishments"/"experience" thing is just bunk. Last I checked ole Ronnie Regan was an ACTOR before becoming governor of California and later the most revered president of the modern era by people like you (no doubt). At least Franken has thought about policies and politics a hell of a lot.