Don't take early baskets too seriously
You'd think someone had slipped something into the Gatorade.
And yet, in effect, that's how the presidential campaign season is being presented to us, with one addition. To make the analogy complete, the coaches would be hoping the early basket would help them raise the money necessary to keep the players going until the end of the game.
Early last week, commentators were describing Barack Obama's campaign as surging in energy following the win in Iowa. People were openly making comparisons to Robert Kennedy in 1968 and even whispering about concerns for Obama's safety. Then came the reality of New Hampshire, and suddenly Obama looks more like Eugene McCarthy. Mitt Romney, meanwhile, is described as desperately in need of a win, and John McCain, while maybe not a kid, has been said to have made a comeback.
In reality, one source has Romney leading the overall Republican delegate count, while Hillary Clinton has a sizeable lead on Obama. But other sources have it differently. Delegates are like water, fluid.
I understand the need for campaign momentum, which depends a lot on the media buzz that accompanies a primary victory (as well as a certain amount of gullibility on the part of many in the media who lack perspective). But the nation hasn't had such a wide-open presidential race in decades, and a lot of people seem confused by it all, with good reason.
Which brings me back to last Sunday's column. I asked for your suggestions for ways to conduct a more fair nomination process. I presented three current proposals: A single, nationwide primary held in every state on the same day; graduated primaries in which small states go first, grouped in random order; and rotating regional primaries, in which the nation is divided into four regions, which take turns going first.
Some of you wrote to express your overall dissatisfaction with the length of the presidential campaign or with the money needed to run for office. Those are issues that defy any meaningful solutions. We value free speech in this country, so you can't stop someone from campaigning early. And a campaign is going to need a lot of money to reach potential voters. Even if the Internet holds the promise of someday reducing those costs, spending limits are undemocratic.
Others of you supported one of the three proposals, with some variations.
Perhaps the most intriguing idea came from Stephen Rust of Centerville. He suggested a series of "blind" votes in each state, beginning in the East and working its way across the country. The official results would be kept secret until all 50 states had voted. "That way," he wrote, "no state's vote has any undue influence on the others ..."
Recent comments
I really don't mind the early states and I think they are helpful...
Stewart | Jan. 13, 2008 at 9:00 p.m.
There's still 47 states waiting to elect someone plus some with...
Anonymous | Jan. 13, 2008 at 9:44 a.m.
