As the polls would have us believe, the Democrat Barack Obama seems to have the majority in his hands. But all these polls do not guarantee him the November 4 victory just yet -- it could simply be the amalgamation of a scoop-obsessed media, of pollsters who haven't sampled enough, and of some poll respondents who just want to be politically correct.

On the other side of the fence, Republican John McCain seems all too poised at the losing end. These past few weeks, attention has gravitated front and center -- not to him, but to his vice presidential pick, Sarah Palin. If this was the campaign strategy they hatched two months ago, then it must have backfired with mixed results. Sure, they have our attention, but in the wrong corners -- Palin's wardrobe controversy? The viral web parodies that paint her as charming but ill-equipped? The exclusive news interviews that leave one more baffled about her than before? Palin could have been the fuel to McCain's nearly-doused fire, but aside from the celebrity she has brought, along came the damage that he desperately needs to control.

During the past two years of an exhaustive and extensive race to the presidency, these two men have been subjected to the most intense scrutiny that is albeit needed in order to elect the leader of the free world. Politics has always been a popularity contest, more so in this age of instant's and 24-hour news. Every sound bite and every gesture has been magnified for pundits and the masses to blog and talk about.McCain, the maverick senator from Arizona, has been a steady, dependable hand at the Republican arena since the 2000 election.

He then seemed to be the more liberal, more likeable candidate than George W. Bush was. He had the gallant experience in important policy issues, having held public office for more than 20 years, including championing a campaign finance reform act; an impressive stint at the Vietnam War; and he projected himself to be an outsider of the Grand Old Party establishment and showed to be open to bipartisanship -- which somehow led to the dissolution of his run in the 2000 GOP primaries. This year though, McCain is finally in the limelight, having overpowered pre-primary favorites such as Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. He could've pushed his agenda further and steamrolled his way to a favorable win, but what happened?

George W. Bush.

The Iraq war.

The financial crisis.

Sarah Palin.

McCain's own undoing.

Barack Obama.

It was a fatal combination of these that contributes to McCain's potential electorate demise.

W's Infamous Legacy

George W. Bush, who meekly endorsed McCain through video at the Republican National Convention, has silently relegated to the back seat in this campaign; the standard-bearer McCain salvaging in vain whatever was left of the GOP's credibility amidst its leader's failed presidency, amplified by the severe lashing it endured at the 2006 Congressional Elections. McCain has obviously distanced himself from W., seeking out voters who still believe in the conservative credo. This strategy may work well for others, but it comes across as an undiplomatic approach when viewed in a global sense -- that even if John McCain is your ally, you will be left to fend for yourself when he doesn't need you -- now, what does that present for international relations?

The war in Iraq has been a most unkind legacy the Bush presidency will bequeath to its predecessor. Borne out of greed, warmongering, sheer brashness -- and using the September 11, 2001 attacks as leverage to justify their cause, it has veered the attention of national security away to what should have been a winsome vanquishing to the real insurgents in Afghanistan. (How Al-Qaida came to be, is another matter.) Iraq, post-Saddam Hussein, is still and even more dangerous than before. The damage has been irreparable, thousands of lives have been lost, and there is still no end in sight.

McCain has only echoed Bush's foolhardy declaration that "We are winning the war" and will continue to keep the troops there, when in truth Americans have only been thrust into a quagmire that has risked them financially -- stretched taxpayers' hard-earned dollars in funding a war chest readily disposable and siphoned by Bush's defense-contractor compadres, but with no concrete results -- and internationally. Does this solidify the neoconservatives' cultivated image of the US as a Big Bully and The Only Rightful Superpower, notwithstanding Guantanamo Bay, the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, the subversive intent of the Patriot Act, the rampant disregard of moral and ethical standards?

More than that, the 44th president will be saddled with fixing an all-but-fallen economy. The US economy is at its most fragile stage today. The bourses have fallen sharply one week after the other, teetering into a depression to rival that of the post-1930's market crash, leaving ordinary citizens anxious whether this setback can be lifted at all. Every nation has felt its crippling effects, and governments have been struggling to soften the blows that the US crisis has consequentially deferred. This whole mess could have been avoided if the government wasn't too lax on big business -- like the levees that could've been strengthened before Hurricane Katrina blew New Orleans into a deluge.

Eight years of George W. Bush does not bide well for the United States. Its image within itself and across the world has only deteriorated since because of its pierced invincibility, complacency and resistance to yield to the nation's best and true interests.

A Campaign of Division

Since the official campaign for the presidency began, McCain has widely veered from his original positions on issues such as reproductive rights, the environment and immigration, to cater to narrow right-wing ideologues. He has only been too willing to risk his reputation to scour out votes, using antagonizing tactics and almost delusional self-aggrandizements. We know that elections are an avenue for all sorts of appealing platitudes and promises that may never happen at all, but can it bring out the worst in a man?

Returning to McCain's selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin -- this has been a provocative move. McCain surely have thought that since Obama has already chosen a man in the form of veteran Sen. Joseph Biden a week ago, he could take this opportunity to woo the disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters and pick a female to reignite the playing field. Before Palin, his campaign was almost going belly up. Since that proclamation, curiosity over the woman of the hour was but natural -- but upon closer inspection, the succeeding revelations suggest that Palin is a mismatch.

Reports that the VP selection process was recklessly dealt; the allegations and accusations that hound Palin's leadership record; her overwhelmingly conservative stance on her own gender's issues, science, religion and education; her short-sighted background on the issues that beset the country as witnessed through her uneasy responses in the nightly news interviews. Celebrity doesn't cut it, substance does. Watching her speak at campaign rallies, Palin exudes an appalling variety of close-minded thinking and adviser-coached applause prompts. A Vice President should be able to equal him/her capability to that of a President, in case the need arises for a succession -- but upon what we have seen, Palin doesn't seem to measure up. If she is unqualified, then it certainly reflects on the judgment of McCain.

Together with McCain, they have campaigned on a ticket of spite and estrangement, stirring up crowds with quasi-Bush "Either you're with us or against us" rhetoric. They have divided the nation into "the pro-America" / "real America" states, and the "others" with "that man". To call a state that votes for you as "pro-America", what would make of a state that doesn't? It conjures up insinuations that if you don't vote McCain-Palin, you're branded as unpatriotic and not putting your "Country First", which has been their campaign tag -- as if nobody thinks of their country's sake. They have taken the citizens as intellectually void -- using blatant discrimination, character assassination, antagonism, and shades of racism to fuel their last desperate stretch.

A Change Will Come

Barack Obama, the first-term senator from Illinois, is the one of the best that the Democratic Party has produced in a long time. His meteoric rise to the top can only be attributed to the fact that he is the living embodiment of the American Dream.

The 2004 Democratic National Convention introduced him to mainstream America and the whole world, and it brought much excitement about this new guy who's taken everyone's attention because of his identity, eloquence, intelligence, charisma and his stirring message of a unified America.

That obviously wasn't the last we've seen of Obama... the guy's got mission and ambition. Who would've known that in a span of four years that he would able to utilize his senate orientation to gear up on the biggest political stage, trumping the once shoo-in, Sen. Hillary Clinton and other more experienced colleagues?

The answer is hope. He was a fresh voice in the decrepit, dreary Washington landscape. Riding on a platform of change, he inspired sentiments of idealism and a renewed hope in the government not just among his supporters but also to the youth, the working-class people, the professionals, his fellow politicians, ordinary citizens within and outside of the country. His message is simple, powerful, and enduring.

Others may argue that Obama's all talk and no action, that he is too inexperienced to lead. Through the course of this campaign, he has showed incredible maturity in making his point without distorting it. He is willing to learn. He knows his subjects clearly and is wont to express his plans, which shone through in the three presidential debates. He acknowledges his limitations and ably compensates for them -- one major case would be the selection of Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden, an expert on the area of foreign affairs. That itself is an example of how he makes important decisions -- well-thought out and for the long run, in contrast to McCain's Palin.

His stand on issues generally reflects what the United States needs in order to reform the government and the economy, and restore a common purpose -- the greater good of its citizens. He evinces an ability to repair frayed diplomatic relations and effect a more benevolent global opinion. And most especially, as what he has been doing, redeem optimism from apathy. Sometimes, all you really need is a dream, a vision, to get things going. No amount of credentials or experience can prepare a president, or predict what his term will be like. But Obama has the qualities, the confidence and the tenacity to become President. His victory can spell a real difference.

Photo:  State Historical Society of Missouri

He was befriended by presidents, artists, industrialists and European royalty and was the first American writer given a cultural status as lofty as a president or a general.  Mark Twain was the most widely known pen name to Samuel Langhorne Clemens, 1835 – 1910.  He was so popular he was constantly photographed, enjoying the attention.

“The rule is perfect:  In all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane.” – Mark Twain

A hundred years later both political parties of the Republicans and the Democrats continue to adhere to Twain’s observation.  How many times have we witnessed both parties accusing their adversary as crazy, insane, stupid, and on an idiot’s mission? Of course, it is usually prefaced with, “My good friend” and in the silent underlying subtext:   “who is an idiot and doesn’t know what he’s talking about!”

Appealing to the emotional hot button of denigration works every time to manipulate the masses, sidelining them to ignore facts and reason as their emotions have been heartily massaged so they now feel superior to whomever they just stripped of their humanity.

“Man is the only animal that blushes.  Or needs to.” - Mark Twain

Do you ever wonder what a voice from America’s past would have to say about the present condition of our politics in 2008?  How would Mark Twain comment regarding how both parties’ nominees have cheated their way through caucuses and primaries? They have pushed aside the honest leaders in their parties. They and their handlers slap themselves in congratulations for choosing the practice of “the ends justify the means.”  They think they have the public hoodwinked into believing they are delivering messages from heaven on high (Republican) or from the highest moral ground (Democrat).

“In religion and politics, people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination.” – Mark Twain

  

Mark Twain on the porch at Quarry Farm, Elmira, New York. 

Photo:  Elmira College Center for Mark Twain Studies

Long before today’s digital technology or the analog of our recent past, it was Mark Twain who wryly observed human nature.  Like an ancient Grecian Oracle of Delphi he prophesied our millennium elections of 2000, 2004 and now 2008:

“Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable.” – Mark Twain

Eight years ago a virulent strain of Republicanism reared its ugly head and plagiarized the CIA playbook of how to topple a government.  For 50 years, by their own admission, the Republicans have plotted and planned to dismantle the American government, behaving as anarchists while claiming to be patriots.  Primarily, they are a group who does not believe in government for they do not wish to be fettered by it.  It took this new millennium to realize their dream and, now, their dream has become a harsh reality, especially for the middle class. 

The Republicans are befuddled as how to spin the blame for the careening financial markets’ current rapid downward spiral since it is causing a widening global depression.  Political and business market corruptors create these economic firestorms when, like a manipulative lover delivering the cold shoulder, they stiff-arm accountability.

“You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.” - Mark Twain

The Republican belief system doesn’t hold room in its heart for government regulation or enforcement to prevent economic crashes.  It continues to hold dear the philosophy that “the markets will correct themselves.”  Of course the markets will correct themselves over time, a whole lot of time. 

Without a strong hand at the wheel of America’s presidency - a person who is experienced, knowledgeable, and a good student of government - the reality is that we are looking at as long as twenty years of corrections for change comes slowly, constantly resisted by greedy human nature.  It will be a long tug of war.

“Education:  that which reveals to the wise, and conceals from the stupid, the vast limits of their knowledge.” – Mark Twain

A case in point is the insanely proposed legislation introduced by big business for the taxpayers to take over all the liabilities of the brokerage houses and banks, abandoning taxpayers to the unlikely prospect of recouping their unwise investment.  Now overseas banks want to feed voraciously at the American treasury trough – even while our treasury is drained by years of excessive war expenses.  To the old boys’ network I say:  “Money doesn’t grow on trees.  The American middle class is tapped out.  Look elsewhere.”

Will Americans wean themselves off of candidates promoted by big business money? Should those TV and radio ad messages be altered to proclaim, “And Big Business approved this message!”?  Historically, the Republicans always sold their souls to big business since to them it is not a conflict of interest or their political philosophy to manage a government and then turn around and dismantle it according to lobbyists’ whims, as evidenced in the Bush energy debacle. 

As an example of secretly dismantling the government without Congressional approval or oversight, Republicans cleverly re-wrote federal agency definitions, producing the crippling of agencies such as FEMA from acting in a timely manner during national disasters, ineptly resulting in the risking of many lives.  The time honored tradition to hamstring government is to slash funding, and, in the Republicans case, they cavalierly scattered funding, rendering agencies useless and unable to act.

How are these two political parties now different one from the other, voters, particularly those who live in the suburbs like me, are asking?

Beginning with the Clintons introducing big business money into the Democratic Party, Obama has increased this practice exponentially to frightening proportions.  The Clintons and Obama have unwisely dragged the Democratic Party into the same quagmire as the Republicans:  a lack of viable integrity and a loss of freedom to govern wisely.

When almost one half billion dollars is spent to secure an American presidency we have to ask ourselves many questions:  What do these special interests want from the next President?  Why is it so important to them to spend this kind of outrageous money to get it?  Can we, as a nation, any longer afford to give it to them? 

Almost 65% of America is struggling to pay its bills.  Almost 70% of this country is middle class.  What does that look like to you? 

Hurricanes on the Gulf Coast, fires in the West, floods in the Midwest, blizzards and flooding in the Northeast, subprime mortgage crisis, jobs sent overseas, food and gas prices constantly rising like a rapid creeping flood inside your house, financial markets’ downward spiral, oil shortages, home foreclosures, business interruptions from natural disasters like hurricanes, and downsizing the income of a current job have all contributed to the rocky status of the middle class, now in extreme crisis.  Of the two million people who lose their homes this year they will most likely be unable to have another home for as long as 10 years, maybe never again, as markets and banks tighten up and restrict who can qualify. 

The media tries to browbeat suburban white voters, screaming they are racists for a no confidence vote about Obama.  The reality is that suburban voters are not comfortable with an inexperienced man only on the federal level just long enough to spend all that time running for president.  The country is in deep crisis on many fronts and this is not the propitious time for a neophyte to be elected President. 

“Many a small thing has been made large by the right kind of advertising.” - Mark Twain

Nor are suburbanites comfortable with McCain, a man from the party that doesn’t believe in good government.  The belief is that he will give them more of the same misery as the past eight years, perhaps yielding a somewhat moderated form of misery.  Misery is misery.

“A man cannot be comfortable without his own approval.” – Mark Twain

 

1902.  Photo:  State Historical Society of Missouri

Voters in the suburbs are frustrated, angry, and fearful.  Voters in the suburbs desire immense change to get America back on the right path.  Suburbanites don’t like extremists or the polarized parties that have proven to be an ineffective Congress and Presidency.  They twiddle their thumbs while the middle class loses ground financially.  Savings are dried up, pension plans in peril or evaporated, little job protection or none at all in so-called “right to work states.”  The politicians actually wonder why the masses are restless.  The middle class is worried they will drop down into poverty, and, rightly so. 

 “It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly American criminal class except Congress.  Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress.  But I repeat myself.” - Mark Twain

Voters who don’t vote at all or wait until just the Presidential general election helped cause this mess.  The unwillingness to be engaged to separate the fact from the fiction in these campaigns has created a political world steeped in what amounts to propaganda, misinformation, outright lies, misdirection, clever half-truths, and the quiet soft-pedaling of harsh reality.

Voters who do not participate in the primary process have enabled extremist politicians who do not appeal to the majority of the country, hijacking both mainstream parties.  If you don’t tend the garden, weeds will grow up and choke out the beauty.

Voters who are lazy or apathetic have allowed moneyed interests to freely purchase our government, bringing all of us a world of hurt.  Now that we can plainly see all around us just how destructive these moneyed influences have become isn’t it time to take back our government?

Traditionally, the majority of America votes mainstream – either Republican or Democrat, never a glance at a minority like an Independent.  This year there could easily be a dramatic climate change. There was a time when a minority political party candidate did not stand a snowball’s chance in hell.  Today?  The weather forecast in the suburbs is hell just froze over. 

The media is no longer the watchdog for Americans but rather, with a very few notable exceptions, has been the fawning lap dog of this White House the past eight years.  Their credibility has evaporated yet they continue to drive one candidate over the other.  That bias is viewed with great suspicion throughout America’s suburbs where many are left wondering:  What’s in it for the media?  How do they profit?

As suburban voters agonize over their choices for President they are at an impasse, not comfortable with either mainstream candidate because both are owned by big business.There is one man of integrity left standing, an Independent:  Ralph Nader. 

For over four decades there has been one loyal government watchdog here in America.  This candidate, represented on the ballot in most states as an Independent, has championed men, women, children, minorities, Republicans and Democrats.  He has helped the entire country.  He has a long resume of championing all Americans on many levels.  “Areas of particular concern to Nader include consumer rights, humanitarianism, environmentalism, and democratic government.” (Wikipedia) Yet he continues to be shoved to the side by the big business media.

“The radical of one century is the conservative of the next.  The radical invents the views.  When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them.” - Mark Twain

This just may be the time when lynchpin voters in the suburbs decide to cast their vote outside the mainstream, in protest weaning themselves off of candidates championed by big business.  The desire for monumental change shouts so great that in the 2008 presidential election independent suburban voters will powerfully forge a paradigm shift in America.

“Always do right.  This will gratify some people and astonish the rest.” - Mark Twain

Fast forward to a time many of us remember, to John F. Kennedy. He had several liaisons, not the least of which was Marilyn Monroe. History records him as one of our most beloved Presidents. He was married and historians record that he had had multiple affairs while living serving as President.

Kennedy's successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, was rumored to have been a philanderer also. In fact a man claimed not too many years ago to be the illegitimate son of Johnson. I am not sure if that was ever proven with a DNA test, but he certainly did look a lot like the man he said was his father and his mother was definitely linked romantically by historians to the former President.

Finally, let's mention another past occupant of the government housing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Bill Clinton. He managed to serve two terms and avoided being thrown out of office after leaving his DNA on the dress of an intern. I believe it was determined that he donated that historical DNA while his wife was asleep down the hall in the White House. He also pointed his finger at us and vehemently denied the affair with the intern whose dress he stained?

Now let's chat a bit about John Edwards, the man who claims 99% truthfulness, which is akin to determining what the definition of “is” is. John lied about an affair and he may have lied about fathering a child with her. I doubt Edwards will ever take that magical DNA test he says he welcomes. The child's mother will never allow it. He will take care of her monetary needs as long as she covers his backside, even though his backside is not the source of his problems; that is another matter.

For a moment and consider that Barack Obama took a vacation this week. I know that because the news channels cut to him in Hawaii for his comment on the Edwards' affair. As for McCain, no one seems to care where he went this week or his feelings about the affair. That is because no one has time to remind McCain where he is, who John Edwards is or that he (McCain) is running for President.

Other news this week; the Olympics started, an American couple was brutally attacked there and one of them is dead, the country of Georgia is under attack by Russia and a beautiful little three year old girl in Florida is still missing after a couple of months. John Edwards' affair is the news?

Let's apply a little common sense with respect John Edwards. When he entered the Presidential primaries he was a loser from 2004 and no longer in the Senate. He was out of political office when he entered the race and performed poorly in the primaries. He made an early withdrawal (something he should have done on one other occasion) from the primaries. John Edwards is a non-issue in politics.

So, why do the tabloids and the mainstream news channels care about his affair with an unknown? Because he denied the affair to reporters, they feel obligated to out him now. They got their man, something that should be back page news.

Front page news should be gathered by following Barack Obama to Hawaii and hounding him about what he is going to do to fix healthcare, the economy and guarantee our homeland security. I am bravely volunteering to search throughout Hawaii for Barack and the love of my life, Deborah, has graciously agreed to accompany me on this hazardous assignment.

One final point, raise your hand if you voted for John Edwards in the primaries. Look around if your hand is in the air; you are in a very small group of people. If you count the people who voted for him in the primaries perhaps a light will go on; he lost and he did it because of his position on the issues. He had no plan and could not get enough votes to make a decent showing, so he dropped out.

The reason his affair is news is to remind other candidates that the press they try to push around does have the last word in most cases. That is definitely an accomplishment but it is giving Obama and McCain a free pass on discussions of the issues. I wonder how many of the mainstream media knows what questions to ask?

As for John Edwards, he should assume his place in history alongside Bill Clinton and others as one more politician whose pants came off in the wrong bedroom. That statement sounds 99% truthful which is politically correct! Close enough?

image source

Do You Smell What Barack Is Cookin? Smells Like Roses.

image source

Cool Obama/JFK juxtaposition.

image source

Simple faded design but multiple colors available.

image source

A personal favorite, puts some art in politics.

image source

Another great design, with an urban graffiti stenciled look.

image source

Barack And Roll. Because surely Barack plays guitar.

image source

Who doesn't like butterflies? Butterflies are clearly democrats.

image source

Simple. Peace sign with Barack's face in middle.

image source

Barack's head turns into a America-looking logo. Awesome.

image source

This looks like it came from the 70's. And by "came from the 70's" I mean came from the 2000s meant to look like it came from the 70's. Confused?

image source

Monochromatic. simple. I dig it.

Hopefully you enjoy these Shirt designs, they are all shirts you probably haven't seen as much. And don't forget to vote, no matter who you vote for, just vote.

Scenario One

• The Democratic Party and the Republican Parties will form organized committees. They will rename themselves (for the sake of simplicity) the Blue Party and the Red Party respectively.
• The Blue Party and the Red Party will meet together and form a list of issues. Each side will be assigned either a YES or NO position.
• The comities will program a computer with their official response to each question. They will then dissolve until such time as they may need to be called upon to clarify any additional issue.
• To streamline the process, the media will be called upon to poll the people in each state. Based on their projections, each state will assigned a color. That color will correspond to that state's electoral vote.
• In the event neither color has a majority the outcome will be decided by celebrity endorsements
• All decisions normally reserved for the president will be answered by the computer. All positions will be filled by the computer randomly assigning people from its party committee.

Scenario Two

• The two party system will be dissolved
• Each candidate will be required run on their own merits and provide their own platform
• This will make it more difficult for the voters to know who to vote for, but it encourages individual decision making rather than mob rule. What the media does about this will be their problem.
• The electoral college will be dissolved
• This may reduce the power of some smaller states- but each voter will have the same amount of influence regardless of the state they live in. It will go against Plato's idea of the uneducated masses being unfit to make a decision.
• The primaries will serve as an elimination, narrowing down the candidates based on their viability. If a candidate finds out they do not have the support to win, they are encouraged to drop out at their own discretion.
• Once the final candidates have been decided they will be required to pick a running mate. Because their are no parties, that will not be an issue.

The thing is that now they have both come out and said that John McCain would make a better president then the other Democratic candidate. But at the last primaries Hillary said, “no matter what; I WILL support the Democratic nominee.” She's a hypocrite through and through.

And now Obama's saying how bad McCain is. But before he said he's a hero and would be a fine president over Hillary Clinton. But he said he would support her over McCain. So do you know what this means? It means that after all the talk about bringing the parties together was all a lie. Because from what they both said, about McCain being a better choice then the other. Because they would rather go with a Democrat who they think would make a bad president then a Republican who they think would be a good president.

I've said it all along. They're liars. And the people see it now.

Another reason they can't win is money. Right now McCain has more money then Hillary, but not Obama. But they both have had primaries in every state. And most democrats donated money to them. So they won't do it again in November. They won't give they're money twice to two people who would make bad leaders. So happily McCain will be our next president.

He's raising about half a million dollars a day from the last news update. And sense Obama and Hillary are spending the people's money against each other; McCain is saving up for the REAL election. They'll both be broke by November.

You see those two states elected the next president. Well, not exactly. But they did limit the field of candidates, diminishing the choices available to voters in other states.

As any good secretary knows, the one who limits the options has more power than the final decision maker. By deciding who won't be president, Iowa and New Hampshire did a disservice to the rest of the country. Their limiting processes produced candidates whose policy views are almost identical. Mainly differences are in nuance. That assures a contest that is personality rather than policy driven. Almost by definition such contests are petty and nasty.

If we are lucky, this will be the last year anyone more than a hundred miles from Dubuque gives a hoot about the Iowa Caucus. Ditto the New Hampshire Primary.

Of course, there are those who believe that candidates mature in the unique atmospheres of Iowa and New Hampshire. They hone their messages. They are forced to meet and learn to connect with small groups.

True, Iowa and New Hampshire look more like the idyllic image of 1950s America than does the country as a whole. Those states are less diverse, better educated and more financially secure than the nation in general. That is partly why those states' early elimination of presidential candidates doesn't produce better presidents for the people of Indiana, Texas, Kansas or North Carolina.

And as for that malarkey about Iowa being a finishing school for candidates, that's just a fancy way of saying amateurs get to spend time practicing before the big show. The nation's problems are urgent and diverse. Being a good president involves more than just getting your speech right. It also requires learning about the diverse problems we face so that together we can build better communities, a better nation and a better world. It's also about developing a mandate by speaking forthrightly on issues about which honorable people strongly disagree. Is that too much to ask of one who aspires to be president of the whole United States?

Such candidates aren't made more numerous by the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire Primary. The uniqueness of their vetting processes is that those states protect the status quo by steering the conversation to the center. They produce candidates who offend the fewest number of voters, and who accordingly will have no mandate to tackle any major problem. Their processes produce candidates who are consistently average.

America's problems aren't 1950s average. Our problems reflect our national diversity. Many of those problems involve balancing the interest of one region against the detriment of another. A presidential election process that permits one or two states to narrow the choices available to 48 other states is a disgrace.

We should shorten this process so that candidates can either win and get on with governing, or lose and go back to work. A national primary system would provide the greatest opportunity for the many diverse and competing interest to equally impact the election. In the alternative, there could be regional primaries where at least two regions voted at a time.

Anything else will continue us down a road toward more and more mediocre presidents who leave office without having tackled the nation's ever-increasing and ever-more complex problems. Worse, we'll move closer to having elections that are mere entertainment where the biggest “star” wins.

Instead of talking about his pastor, we should be discussing his qualities as our next president. We should be trying to find out about his leadership ability, style, his stance about the war, economy, balancing the budget, and foreign affairs. The average American, even in the Ghetto, could care less about his pastor. More importantly, Obama's former pastor. They want to know, how am I going to get to work to make the little money that I am making or how am I going to feed my children? What is the government going to do about Healthcare for my children/family? These are the key issues the average American is concerned about. I encourage everyone, don’t listen to the hype! We don’t care, he’s not our pastor. And if he was, let his church deal with that. There’s nothing different about him than the Catholic priests molesting little boys.

Incredibly, almost the entire first hour of the Debate, and I call it that with reservation, was a grilling of him on the “Bitter” comments he made in relation to the frustration of voters, which makes them rely on their religion and guns; the Reverend Wright controversy, etc. Almost anyone who hasn't heard about both these events to the point of near insanity, has either been out of the country or in a comma the last month or so. Yet, the hosts, Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulous found it necessary to spend at least 50 minutes rehashing them …with Hillary Clinton … once again.

First, the “bitter” comment. Obama answered the questions. And, answered the questions.

Then, they moved on to the Reverend Wright controversy.

Again, he answered their questions, noting that they had been asked and answered before.

It wasn't disturbing that the hosts chose to go down this over-worked trail, but whenever Obama would complete his answers to their questions, (when they weren't cutting him off), they would eagerly ask Clinton to respond.

And, it would start all over again. She then would go on, and on about these wrongful affiliations (Rev. Wright), and the comments (Bitter), that she would never have, or make.

I began to feel like I was watching The Hillary Clinton Show with the journalists working with her to keep this guy on the hot seat.

Finally, when it seemed the interrogation had finally run its course, and real issues were being discussed, ZAM, POW, BAM! Out of left field, Stephanopoulous, who was a Bill Clinton staffer, hit Obama with a question about an individual who had been a part of the radical Weathermen underground network back in the "60"s?

What!?!

It seems Obama has a casual association with the individual and served on a Board with him at one time.

Then, when they passed the bat to Hillary on this issue, and she hit him with it a few times, you could have taken me out of the oven, I was done.

Of course, they didn't ask Obama if he wanted to respond to her comments, and when he tried to anyway by saying, “What about Bill Clinton pardoning 2 Weathermen while he was in office?” They did what they (especially George Stephanopoulos) did a number of times during the evening… they cut him off.

They even brought up the old news about Obama opting out of wearing an American Flag lapel pin, which he already explained. He said that people wear the pin as a sign of patriotism, but he would much rather express his patriotism through his actions … like his work on the Veteran's Committee.

It was a most extraordinary event. After watching all the past debates that were very professional and restrained in their sensationalism, I am surprised at ABC. And, as far as journalism, well … responsible, fair and substantive aren't words that leap to mind.

Under the circumstances, Obama conducted himself as well as could be expected when under such a sustained attack. He was on the defensive, but who wouldn't be? To his credit, he remained calm throughout, which gives me all the confidence in the world that he's not a hot head, rather cool and deliberative.

The most startling bit of information to come out of this supposed debate was that Clinton was forced to admit that Barack Obama is indeed electable.

I'll say! One of Clinton's main talking points has been that she, unlike Obama, is vetted and can withstand Republican attacks in the general election.

Well, so is Obama now! After the last few weeks, and especially after the beating he took tonight, it's clear, he can stand up to whatever comes his way.

Right now we are down to three candidates. And what's interesting, with John McCain (R-AZ), all three are senators. As history has shown us, senators don't usually fair well in presidential elections. Not since 1960 when John F. Kennedy squeaked out a victory over Republican nominee and two-term Vice-President, Richard M. Nixon, has a senator won the presidency. So whoever wins this election will be the first sitting senator in 48 years to become president. During that span Senators, John Kerry (D, 2004), Robert Dole (R, 1996), George McGovern (D, 1972) and Barry Goldwater (R, 1964) all came up short. Governors on the other hand have done extremely well during this span. George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter were all governors before winning the presidency.

Clinton's or Obama's date with history has no doubt overshadowed McCain's. But race and gender aren't the only “firsts” in this election. McCain's date with history has some interesting elements too. If he wins, at age 72, he would become the oldest person and only septuagenarian elected to the presidency. His age would also put him in uncharted waters, by becoming the first president born in the 1930s. For some reason, the decade has not been able to produce a president. The only other major party nominee born in the 1930s was Michael Dukakis (D, 1988). He lost the election to George H.W. Bush making him the only governor to lose in the last 48 years. The presidency hasn't been too kind to the generation born in the "30s. We jumped from the 1920s to the 1940s when Bush Sr. (b.1924) passed the baton to Clinton (b. 1946). It"s important to note that McCain would also be the first president to have actually served in the Vietnam War.

Of course, compared to Clinton's or Obama's potential accomplishments, McCain's aren't exactly front page news. Age has taken a backseat to race and gender and understandably so. As Dr. Marc Lamont Hill of Temple University so humorously put it on The Fox News Channel's O'Reilly Factor; “White males are undefeated in presidential elections.” So the idea of a woman or African American ending a 219 year winning streak is certainly attention-grabbing.

With all the rhetoric of an Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama dream ticket, it would be interesting if McCain chose Condoleezza Rice as his running mate. She just might be the remedy to lower the temperature of the Obama-Clinton fever.