Given Hillary's Clinton's recent comments concerning the assasination of Robert Kennedy in 1968, it's become obvious she is not fit for the presidency. Here is what she said:

"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it."

First of all, these comments are insensitive, not only for hinting, whether intentional or not, at the prospect of the assasination of a political opponent but also given the recent diagnosis of Robert Kennedy's brother Ted with brain cancer. There is no excuse for such a comment. However, even giving Clinton the benefit of the doubt here, taking her at her word that she was only invoking historical references, is difficult. She is being intellectually dishonest.

In 1968, only 13 states held primaries. California, being one of the obvious "big states", held their primary on June 5. New York held it's primary after California, demonstrating that the primary election calendar extended beyond this year's end date. In 1992, again the primary calendar was extended beyond this year's end date, with "big states" such as Ohio and California, holding primaries in late May or June. Thus, if it's the "big states" that really matter to her, they're already finished this year, as she should be.

On a side note, Clinton continues to talk about seating the delegations of Florida and Michigan because she wants their votes to be counted, claiming that not counting those votes disenfranchises millions of people. On the other hand, she has claimed that if the primary were winner-take-all she would already be the nominee. But, doesn't electing delegates in a winner-take-all fashion disenfranchise those who voted for the losing candidate? Isn't it more fair to allocate delegates based on the number of votes, so that the votes of everyone counts for something at the nominating convention?

Although I am an admitted Obama supporter, I'll try to form an unbiased opinion about the situation with seating delegates from Michigan and Florida. First of all, it is obviously unfair to use the results of the initial primaries. This is not only unfair to the candidates who pledged not to campaign in those states, but also to the voters who decided not to go to the polls after being told their votes wouldn't count. Secondly, using the initial results sets a precedent for future primary seasons so that other states may begin moving up their primaries with the expectation that their delegates would eventually be seated at the convention. So, is the answer a revote?

No, I do not believe revote is the solution either. Again, that sets a bad precedent that if you mess up big time, it's okay, you get a do over. The anger toward the national party leaders is misdirected, intentionally so by leaders in each state. The voters in Michigan and Florida should be upset with their state representatives and leaders who held the primaries early despite warnings from the national party that doing so would mean their delegates would not be seated. Thus the voters in each state should remove from office those that disenfranchised them from having a voice in the Democratic Presidential nomination process and not direct anger at the national party leaders.

However, it seems likely a revote will occur. Should this happen, I believe that Michigan and Florida still must suffer some consequences for not following the rules they had originally agreed to. The punishment handed down by the Republican party seems appropriate, halving the number of delegates for each state. So, even with a revote Michigan and Florida still should lose some delegates for this season to send the message to other states in the future that the rules everyone agreed to should be followed.

The Democratic Party's presidential nomination process has captured the attention of the country, leaving many of us, myself included, hungry for every tidbit of information that can be found. Not so long ago in 2004 a young and charismatic Illinois State Senator by the name of Barack Obama delivered an inspiring speech at the Democratic National Convention. With this speech, he burst onto the national scene and whispers of a potential presidential run started almost immediately. I for one was optimistic that he would run, and in February of 2007 my hope came true.

It is amazing that the Obama campaign has positioned itself where it is. Barack took on the establishment of the party and the most powerful couple in the party, the Clintons. Certainly their platforms are very similar and I don't agree with every political stance they have. The primary difference, though, is the message that each candidate is sending to the electorate. Obama is spreading inspiration, hope, and leadership in a campaign that seems aimed at putting our country back on track. Clinton is spreading misinformation, venom, and doubletalk in a campaign that seems aimed more at accomplishing Clinton's ambition to become the first female President than at doing good for the country.

I would have preferred a more libertarian candidate who would respect the Constitution and ensure civil liberties were protected. However, I believe given the times that Obama is the best candidate of those that can reasonably expect to win the presidency. He has promised to "discard Bush's unconstitutional executive orders"1 and statements like that have reassured me. More than that, however, I prefer a candidate who seems to respect the intelligence of the voters. Obama's willingness to cross party lines to get things accomplished (well established by his record in the Illinois State Senate and US Senate) combined with his message of hope, the intelligence with which he speaks, and the respect he gives to voters makes him the first Presidential candidate for whom I want to cast a vote for rather than voting against another.

That being said, the way in which the Clinton campaign has been run makes it impossible for me to ever cast a vote for her. It has been a campaign of hypocrisy, misinformation, religious intolerance, racism, and the same fear-mongering employed by the Bush administration. It started with Bill Clinton's attempt to cast Obama as "the black candidate" by comparing him to Jesse Jackson and has continued with Clinton's relative silence to Geraldine Ferraro's comments that Obama is only in the position that he is in because he's black. The anger that spewed forth at one of Obama's advisors calling Clinton a "monster" seems all the more hypocritical in light of one of Clinton's advisor's racist comments. The lack of action on removing Ferraro, a member of her campaign finance committee, from her campaign speaks loud and clear to her ambition to become president at all costs rather than to an ambition doing real good for our country.

Obama hasn't been perfect himself in this campaign, but he has certainly carried himself with more dignity than Clinton has. Our leaders should not resort to crying and hypocritical "shame on you" comments or claims of political experience that they really don't have (see her claims of international diplomacy forays,2 one of which ironically includes a speech).

As for the question of experience? It's certainly true Clinton has more experience living in Washington than does Obama, but then so does Bush and that hasn't made him a good president that last few years. Furthermore, if we're voting for experience that John McCain should be our choice, not Clinton. And what would Clinton say of the charismatic, inspiring young Democratic elected president in 1992? Someone by the name of Bill Clinton who had zero elected office experience in Washington prior to his Presidency. Which of the Senators did she support over her husband that year, Tom Harkin, Bob Kerrey, Eugene McCarthy, or Paul Tsongas?

Thus my support, my vote, and a modest contribution from me are going to Barack Obama. It will be my first vote for a Presidential candidate rather than against another. Admittedly, it is his inspirational messages of hope that drew me to his campaign, and I believe he deserves a chance to deliver on these promises. He might not succeed, but I think that's all he and his supporters are asking for: a chance to do something good for our country.