The primary season for the Democratic Party has turned out to be the most interesting and unpredictable series of events since at least 1980, the year President Jimmy Carter was challenged by Massachusetts Senator Edward M. (Ted) Kennedy. Kennedy took ten primaries from Carter and cast some doubt on the nomination of the sitting President, but eventually cooler heads prevailed as public opinion turned back toward Carter. Whether this year’s version of theater is similar in any degree is somewhat debatable, but the level of disorganization and bickering offered up from the Democratic ranks is a spectacle worth following.
One of the largest, perhaps the largest, conflicts that has arisen is the battle between the two states who were punished for holding their primaries too early and the Democratic party, who punished them. These two states, Florida and Michigan, have been actively looking for ways to have their primaries be counted and their delegations seated at the party convention. Of course, the conflict has found its way to the candidates. Hillary Clinton wants the contests to count. This is mainly because she was the winner of the meaningless votes. Barack Obama, who obeyed the candidate agreement to avoid campaigning in those two states, does not support the counting of the contests or any attempt to have another primary.
Even if all parties were to agree to have a do-over primary in the two states, there is another debate about how to go about doing it. Disputes over funding, logistics, and authenticity are all valid arguments that have been raised. Everything from a mail-in primary to various formulas on how to allocate the delegates based on the original primary results has been discussed. One particularly unique idea, editorialized in the Boston Globe recently, would consist of a caucus-like group of voters who would attend a Lincoln-Douglas-style debate between the two candidates and base their vote on what they learned from the debate. This particular idea is the best one in terms of actual logistical reality, but the majority of the population is unfamiliar with Lincoln-Douglas debate and would likely find the various rules confusing.
There is, however, one idea that has had little attention paid to it. It is not necessarily the easiest, and it certainly will not satisfy everyone, but it is probably the most fair and authentic of all proposals. It’s most significant downfall is that it would require both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton to agree to the idea.
The plan calls for funding of the primary by the two campaigns. Funding the two primaries would be extremely expensive, especially for just two Presidential campaigns with realistic chances of competing in November. Due to this, if the campaigns wish to enlist the support of private sources for donations, they should be free to do so. There will be two main stipulations. To insure fairness and voter freedom, the primaries will be funded with equal portions of the Clinton and Obama campaigns. In other words, the campaigns will sponsor half of each of the primaries, with complete disclosure of the money’s original source. This insures that voters feel no pressure to vote a particular way because of an imbalance of funding between the candidates. The other stipulation is that the candidates will not seek nor accept any funding from any national or state party or committee. This too will allow voters to have no allegiance to anyone or anything other than their preferred candidate. Finally, the Democratic parties of the two states will handle the logistics of the contest, such as whether the primary will be handled in normal polling places, by mail, or any other method. The staff needed to carry out the primary will be paid by the party, through the funding of the two campaigns. This would avoid, for example, a polling official’s wages being handed out by a particular campaign, thus opening the contest to manipulation. All other expenditures will be handled in the same way.
For the moment, this plan is no different than any other; it is just a proposal up for debate. It does address the most urgent and fundamental questions though, which is something some other plans do not. Whether the candidates can come together long enough to get to the point of setting up a do-over primary remains to be discovered, but that is not to say that they cannot or will not. When and if they do, however, they have plenty of ideas to choose from.

At the outset of the Presidential campaign, Barack Obama transmitted the sense that he was, or was going to be, America’s favorite candidate. Sure he was inexperienced compared to his opponents. Of course he had little foreign policy understanding. According to Senator Obama, none of this mattered, and it really didn’t have to do with being President anyway. He maintained that most of it had to do with rising above political partisanship and Washington mind games. For a time, it seemed America bought this sunny idea, and many Americans still may, but it is becoming increasingly clear that Obama is a politician above all, and he cannot bridge any gaps or rise above it all.
Coupled with his idealistic political message, Senator Obama spoke of racial harmony. He spoke of peace and justice, and how it can be obtained. Not only could he overcome politics, he could overcome racial barriers and change the thinking of many. He was raised by a white, middle-class mother. His father was a black native African. He was college educated at the best educational institutions the nation has to offer, yet he was not above recognizing poverty. Instead of working in corporate law, where his intelligence would have been handsomely rewarded, Barack Obama, the seemingly well-off young man of a relatively privileged upbringing, sacrificed all that to become a civil-rights activist. In a sense, according to Obama and his supporters, he had the very best of both worlds, if the best was to be had in at least one of those worlds.
The need for an end to racially-motivated thinking and political agendas is extraordinarily needed in this country. There are few people within mainstream society, of any school of political thought, who would disagree with that. The idea, however, that one person can change all of the misfortunes of this country simply by becoming president is misguided and unrealistic. All of that aside, Barack Obama has shown America why he is not the solution, and why he will likely never be the solution, either on his own or within a group.
Barack Obama discovered that his associations with certain people were actually subject to some scrutiny. Surely this was a shock to him because the mainstream media has, for the most part, been on bended knee for him. Nevertheless, when it was disclosed that Barack Obama associated with Reverend Jeremiah Wright, a minister who has made many controversial remarks about America and race, the Obama campaign was set back for the first time in many months. Obama was in a fix. Not only did SenatorObama know Mr. Wright, he attended his church for twenty years, and Wright married Barack and his wife, as well as baptized the Obama children. The Obama campaign could not shrug this off.
There is no good way for a politician to get out of a situation like what Mr. Obama has found himself in. In many ways, it is not what the candidate has done, but how he or she deals with the crisis that makes or breaks a campaign. Obama could have, and should have, publicly apologized for allowing himself to be portrayed in such a light, and then explained his exact thinking as to why he allowed himself and his family to listen to such angry rhetoric. Then, Senator Obama should have condemned Jeremiah Wright for such Anti-American speech, recognized that Wright’s comments were just as bigoted as those made by any white supremacist in the past, and rejected any notion of returning to the church. Making such a speech still may not have undone the damage, but it would be a much better shot than what Obama did do.
Barack Obama suddenly became a clear-cut politician. His nervousness was apparent as he attempted to speak about the issue in a speech in Philadelphia this week. He rejected nothing in particular and tried to make the issue more about overall racial tensions than his association with such a controversial figure. There were no specific condemnations of his minister’s comments, such as the aids virus being invented by the government for genocidal purposes, or Wright’s quote, “God Damn America!” Instead, Obama tried to make the issue more about racial tensions that, for the most part, do not exist In America today. In short, Barack Obama deflected the issue, just like a politician, rather than dealing with it. He walked a fence. He justified without justifying. He changed the subject without changing it, and he failed.
Barack Obama’s masterless performance in Philadelphia proves that he will not be an accessory to harmony. He is a politician after all. What is most disturbing, especially in a world like today’s, is that Obama proved he cannot face a problem head on. He ducked. He panicked. Most of all, he solved absolutely nothing.

There comes a point in the natural life of anything, whether it be a living thing or a society, that the quality of its existence brings into question its own integrity. It is a frightful time to those who watch the often slow erosion of integrity. It is a slow bleed that leaves all crying for help that seems slow in coming, if it makes an appearance at all. I am afraid that our society is experiencing such a bleed. For years, our country has been a revered patriot of honesty. For many who stepped to our shores, our country offered a second chance. It was a chance that offered a good standard of life provided one work for it. Ellis Island has become legendary for its place in American -immigration history. The island, located in New York, was the place many immigrants fell to their knees to kiss American soil before gaining legal entry through proper identification and paper work. These people became full-fledged Americans with voting capability. They raised their children as Americans, and many of the children of immigrants fought in American wars. (more…)

The past year marked a massive change for the Republican party. For the first year in over a decade, the GOP found itself the minority party in both houses of Congress. Since the midterm elections of 1994, the Republican Party retained constant control of the legislative branch. Coupled with the two elections of President George W. Bush, The Grand Old Party was in firm control of Washington. For many Republicans in Congress, this is their first time in the minority. These lawmakers began their legislative careers in the 1994 elections or the subsequent elections that kept Congress in similar alignment. Considering the lack of experience in this matter, and the force leveled against the GOP by the Democratic leadership, the Republicans have a great deal to be proud of. Not only did they prove to be a formidable opposition, they were able to achieve significant victories. (more…)

The race for the Democratic Party’s Presidential nomination has heated up between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Much of their time has been spent bantering back and forth about each other’s experience on dealing with various issues, chiefly foreign policy. Recently, however, things have gotten slightly messier. Once again, the Democratic Party has proven that a single election cannot go by without race being brought into the fray. (more…)

As the primary season fast approaches, the Presidential race has heated up. Several individuals have become quite engaged. Such disputes include Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani against Romney, and John McCain versus the rest of the field. With the possible exception of Huckabee and Romney, the race that has proven to be the most unpredictable is the Democratic race between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Just a few months ago Democratic insiders seemed resigned to the idea that Hillary Clinton would be the party’s candidate for President. Despite leaving as much room as any other candidate for criticism, in some cases more, Clinton has maintained a constant lead. According to Gallup, at one point she was nearly thirty points above Obama, her closest competitor. Clinton, though maintaining her lead, appears to be weakening. (more…)

The past week played host to two major news events. The first was the visit to Columbia University by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The second was the increasingly visible struggle in Myanmar for political and social liberty and the institution of democracy. Both topics received considerable attention and brought out many different views and commentaries, especially on the issue of Ahmadinejad. Both issues have a major effect on the world-wide political stage. It is hard to believe that two stories and one person, encompassing three countries, thousands of miles apart, can be connected in any way, but the events are very connected. They are connected in a manner that is both regrettable and disturbing. (more…)

The senate recently put its official stamp of condemnation on moveon.org, the leftist political website that punishes any liberal who is not a radical socialist and attempts to call distinguished military officials liars. The vote was essentially an overwhelming affirmation of disapproval. Many democrats joined Republicans in a 72-25 vote. Moveon.org’s favorite radical liberals, Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama, were not on the affirming side. Clinton voted against the measure and Obama, perhaps displaying some type of conscience, did not vote at all. Moveon has made it clear that any Democrat who supports the war effort, has any sign of bipartisan leanings, or in anyway appears to be a moderate will be outrightly disowned by the organization. One has to think, after such a loud outcry by senators on both sides of the isle, moveon will be busy condemning for sometime coming. While it is somewhat comforting to have some proof that not all Democrats have become radicals, or at least they are not so willing to display it as Mrs. Clinton is, there are some disturbing things to consider about this senatorial action. (more…)

We have recently been faced with one of the most horrifying domestic tragedies a nation can witness. A heavily-traveled artery, which provided the backbone of a major city’s transportation needs, mysteriously descended into a pile of rubble feet below in the Mississippi River. There is no doubt that the tragedy in Minnesota is a terrific terror to those who witnessed it, and all the prayers and help our great nation can offer should be with them. However, the liberal congress in Washington has unashamedly turned the bridge collapse into a politically-polarized agenda designed to further smear top government officials, namely President Bush. Some liberals have conjured enough nerve to link the war in Iraq to the bridge accident. The Democratic Party is screaming with signs that it is cracking from the inside out, and many of its leaders, confronted with sinking confidence in congress and rising confidence in the president, are gripped with panic. The democrats’ unabashed animosity for the Republican Party and the president is appalling. The democratic leaders are so afraid of what they are hearing that any opportunity to blame something, anything, on conservative values will be taken straight to the conservative-hating media. The congress has tried to appear valiant by allocating over 200 million dollars to the reconstruction of the bridge. This action should not be criticized because as the law stands now, the correct action was taken. Nevertheless, it enables the democrats and the bureaucracy they bring with them. They can now point to themselves, proclaiming that they allocated the money to fix the problem. Unfortunately, this will appeal to some people who, unaware of the risk, believe in the good intentions of bureaucratic nature. The shameless Washington democrats and their believers wouldn’t have it occur to them that their own irresponsibility led to the failure of the bridge in Minnesota, and if something isn’t done soon, similar tragedies will occur. (more…)

Recently, two top-tear democratic candidates have released agendas on an important issue. Both John Edwards and Barack Obama have declared their ideas on poverty. Edwards has made direct reference to Robert F. Kennedy’s crusade against poverty, obviously hoping to imply comparisons from old RFK supporters and draw a crowd of younger American’s who have grown to know the Kennedy story. Obama’s plan has similarities to Edwards’s. The amount of detail these top candidates are already employing indicates the breakneck pace that has been set for this campaign. However, such speed also places pressure on other candidates to do the same as Edwards and Obama already have. No doubt poverty is a key in the democratic arsenal that will be used to attempt exposure of conservative candidates. There are unintended consequences of such actions though, and democratic candidates need to be wary of who exactly they will expose.

(more…)