I don't know why but I heard today that Obama McCain would be the dream match up this fall but something else I learned today really scares me and stinks to high heaven of a set up! I don't like the implications at all. First John McCain is a solid favorite to win the Republican presidential nomination. Barack Obama is an ever-so-slight underdog on the Democratic side. Obama-McCain, however, would be a dream general-election matchup, the most defining American presidential race since at least 1980. Just think of the contrasts.
The age gap between the 46-year-old Obama and the 71-year-old McCain would be the widest in the history of presidential elections. (The current record: 1996, with Bob Dole 23 years older than Bill Clinton.) Before Obama was even born, McCain was shocking his uptight naval colleagues by bringing a stripper dubbed the "Flame of Florida" to the Officers' Club. More than any other Republican or Democrat, they appeal to independent-minded voters while still parting ways on crucial issues. On Iraq, taxes, health care and the Supreme Court, the differences between these two men are profound. McCain would want to focus a race on national security and terrorism, Obama on domestic concerns and economic insecurity. "This would be an extraordinary contest, an opportunity to see striking contrasts, from age to public philosophy," says Tom Mann, a political scientist at the Brookings Institution, based in Washington.
It would be change versus experience, the audacity of hope versus the faith of our fathers. A small though instructive moment of discord marked their first real engagement. It was in early 2006, and they were the leading point men for their parties in trying to fashion an ethics bill for the Senate. The Senate Democratic leadership, which had put the freshman Illinoisan in a visible role for public relations reasons, pressured him to back off on dealing with McCain. Obama acquiesced, sending a letter to McCain, yet releasing it to the please read on about the Obama McCain relationship
This so called ideal matchup I fear will never be! It's a setup and I was stunned to hear this and that it is acceptable! First I must admit that because of Bush I have found myself forced to learn about the political process from the ground up under duress. Most of what I have found is very distasteful. The Political system does not favor us the voter but is designed to clandestinely take the voting process out of our hands. We have been determined not to be trusted with picking our own leaders! Americans like a level playing field and we are not going to get it this fall again!
* We wouldn't watch the Super Bowl if one team was given a free touchdown to start. We're apoplectic over the idea of baseball players loading up on steroids. No wonder the Democratic Party is facing serious scrutiny over the idea that super delegates are tilting its presidential playing field in favor of Hillary Clinton. If you haven't heard of these folks in past elections, don't feel bad. They have been, at times, a rather obscure bunch.
** Here's their story, in short: A few decades ago, Democratic leaders felt that sometimes, Democratic voters were choosing poor presidential candidates: campaigners who couldn't win elections, or even if they could, they didn't please Democratic kingmakers. Jimmy Carter, for example, was an obscure candidate who developed so much popular appeal that he essentially forced Democratic Party leaders to accept him as the nominee, even though not everyone was thrilled by it. See? So the party changed the rules for picking its nominee. They made the super delegates: a super class of super Democrats, each of whom could vote at the convention for a candidate of choice -- in effect, giving each of these Democrats the power of tens of thousands of average citizens. Who are they? Democratic members of Congress, governors, big-shot party members: Bill Clinton, for example. The theory was that the super delegates could help steer the party toward solid, competitive candidates, and away from Monday morning regrets.
There are about 800 of them, and that's a lot when you can win the nomination with only about 2,000 delegates. Hence the controversy. Even though Barack Obama is winning more delegates in actual primaries and caucuses, Hillary Clinton is substantially ahead of him in the overall delegate count because many more super delegates say they will vote for her. Maybe that shouldn't matter. Both candidates knew the rules when they started. If she's better at securing these delegates, good for her, too bad for him. But that argument may clatter like a counterfeit quarter with the general public if this race continues neck-and-neck down to the convention, if the Democratic nominee is not selected by a sea of Americans voters, but instead is anointed by party leaders.
Super delegates can change their minds, and if Obama starts running away with the popular vote, you can bet your house some of them will stampede from Camp Clinton. But if the race remains very tight, and the super delegates are the deciding factor, the Democratic Party can expect some tough questions. Remember, many staunch Democrats have always felt Al Gore had his presidency stolen by the courts and the Electoral College. If the super delegates decide this race, there will certainly be a lot of heated debates within the party, and perhaps a very cold November awaiting the nominee. Bill Clinton can determine our nominee
** We have got to get involved, change the system, take it Back!