Monday, July 16, 2007
Democracy Lives?

The current controversy surrounding the Hillary Clinton and John Edwards campaigns raises a larger question about the state of our primary election process.  What benchmarks should a candidate meet in order to be considered viable?  And should that matter in determining who would be the best President of the United States?

It seems to me the national debate is already quite limited.  The race for the highest office in the world has already been limited to who can raise the most money and who can perform well in two of the smallest states in the country.  Many states have tried to get in on the action, moving their primary elections up in order to actually matter to the campaigns.

On another note, what does this action say about the candidates themselves?  Hasn't John Edwards been running on a theme about "The Two Americas," the have and the have nots?  He sure sounds a little elitist here.  Is this the type of democracy we want?

Comments: (4)



Both Edwards and Clinton should be ashamed of themselves. Edwards sure thinks highly of himself! Apparently the other candidates don't measure up to his level...

A national primary day would resolve the problem of two tiny states bearing undue influence.

Replacing primaries with conventions for selecting candidates would resolve much of the money-spending problems; but create new problems of its own.

Your blog has been added to my blog roll at http://www.endiana.com

Good thought on the primary day, Kenn. That seems like a better alternative.

With much of America having such SHORT attentions spans, I just can't see myself clear to handle the primaries in any other way....

But Kenn's idea warrants merit (and study).

America can't seem to focus on a war as it is (in order to achieve victory)...what makes it think it can handle any more politics than is necessary...?

THAT is what America "seems" to want (along with more reality shows).

That is NOT what I want, however.
Nor should you.