I'm Lovin' It!

The Republicans:

Do not count out John McCain (Mr. Phoenix). He may have no money. He may have no support. He may have no youth. But now he's got the lead in the Republican primaries. I have said before that the Republicans would be wise to nominate John McCain as their presidential candidate. Maybe that's what's happening. If so, I think the Democrats are going to have a much harder time with the general election than most people predict.

On the Republican side, Mitt Romney (Mr. Second Place) is trying to minimize McCain's win. I saw his interview this morning on The Today Show. Meredith Viera asked him: if the economy is his strongest issue, why then did the majority of Florida voters primarily concerned with the economy vote for McCain? His response? That his campaign could only get so much advertising out to the public. Really? McCain only won because Mitt Romney's campaign couldn't get more advertising? The man practically has corporate sponsorship. "Tonight's Mitt Romney concession speech is brought to you by McDonald's: I'm Lovin' It!"

Meanwhile, Rudy Giuliani (Mr. Oblivion) has a magic campaign: he made his entire national lead disappear! Honestly, I think that once the primaries began, and Mr. Giuliani's strategy came into light, the only people who thought he would win were himself, his campaign workers, and the 16% of Floridians who voted for him. He was a joke from start to finish, and even those slow on the learning curve are finally coming to that conclusion. Consequently, Giuliani is going to drop out of the race today and endorse McCain, which is more bad news for Romney.

Furthermore, since Iowa, Mike Huckabee (Mr. Hangin'-In-There) has become irrelevant when it comes to issues, choosing instead to pander to each state's constituents. He stated publicly in a debate that he supported educational assistance for children of illegal immigrants, only to then sign a pledge in South Carolina to work to deport the estimated 12 million illegals in the country. He apparently wants to help the children while at the same time kicking the parents out. I guess only Americans benefit from a family environment. In fact, Huckabee's only purpose in this race is to be a spoiler for Romney: he takes the evangelical votes that Romney would otherwise probably receive.

And Ron Paul (Mr. Libertarian)? Well, he seems to be running in a race all his own, with his phenomenal fundraising not making much of an impact at the poles.

The Democrats:

Not much to report for the Democrats, since there wasn't much of a campaign. The DNC stripped Florida of all it's delegates for holding it's primary too early, and all of the leading Democratic candidates signed a pledge to not campaign in Florida. But never-the-less, there's Hillary Clinton (Mrs. Legacy), in Florida on the eve of the primary. And there she is, celebrating her victory after winning the primary.

But this time, it's Barack Obama's (Mr. Pseudo-Kennedy) campaign minimizing her win. Even though she got 60% of the vote, they argue that it wasn't a true campaign, and in the end she gets no delegates, anyway. But will Florida give her much needed momentum going into Super Duper Tuesday? I don't' know. Did her Michigan win give her momentum going into Nevada?

And as far as John Edwards (Mr. Common Man) goes, news agencies are now "Breaking News" that he is dropping out of the running for the Democratic presidential nomination. Who will this benefit more, Clinton or Obama? I don't know. But I fear that the campaign will turn into a bickering-fest for the two candidates left. John Edwards presence made it necessary for Clinton and Obama to discuss (at least some) issues.

The 2008 State of the Union

Not surprisingly, I found the 2008 State of the Union to be an overall disappointment. The President met the bar, but since this was his last State of the Union and his approval ratings are so low, the bar wasn't set very high. There are many statements made last night that I could take exception to, however in the interest of time, I would like to highlight just these two:

"Members of Congress, the No Child Left Behind Act is a bipartisan achievement. It is succeeding. And we owe it to America's children, their parents and their teachers to strengthen this good law."

I would argue that anyone who thinks the No Child Left Behind Act is truly succeeding has not spent any meaningful amount of time working in a public school since they graduated.

"We must also do more to help children when their schools do not measure up. Thanks to the D.C. Opportunity Scholarships you approved, more than 2,600 of the poorest children in our nation's capital have found new hope at a faith-based or other nonpublic schools.

Sadly, these schools are disappearing at an alarming rate in many of America's inner cities. So I will convene a White House summit aimed at strengthening these lifelines of learning.

And to open the doors of these schools to more children, I ask you to support a new $300 million program called Pell Grants for Kids. We have seen how Pell Grants help low-income college students realize their full potential.

Together, we've expanded the size and reach of these grants. Now let us apply the same spirit to help liberate poor children trapped in failing public schools."

Teachers in this country are working much harder than most all politicians understand, and turning around and sending students to other schools is a slap in their face. I find it incredibly disheartening that the President of the United States feels that his country's public education system -- the great equalizer -- is a lost cause. But if anyone thinks that private schools are so much better, I would simply argue that the current President of the United States is a product of private schools.

Minimizing the Win

I played a show in Albany on Saturday night, so I was only able to watch a fraction of the returns from the South Carolina Democratic primary. By the time I went to sleep after 1AM, however, the results were in, and it showed that Sen. Barack Obama had beaten Sen. Hillary Clinton by more than a 2-to-1 margin. And now the spin begins.

When a presidential campaign comes in any place other than first in a primary, the goal of the following few days is to minimize the win of the dominant campaign; to try to stop the momentum by making others believe that this particular victory is not as important as it is (or it seems). But it seems like the attempts at minimizing Sen. Obama's win on Saturday are particularly strong.

The soundbite that everyone was talking about yesterday, and today, is from (who else) former President Bill Clinton. When asked about Sen. Obama's win in South Carolina, he responded, "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here." Roland S. Martin, radio commentator and journalist, commented on the remarks, writing that President Clinton "didn't mention his win in 1992. Or that of Vice President Al Gore in 2000, or even then-Sen. John Edwards' win in 2004. He decided to bypass all of these gents and link Obama with Jackson, who is beloved in black America but stirs hatred among many whites." (Read the full commentary here) Mr. Martin makes a very good point about Mr. and Mrs. Clinton playing the "race card" in order to turn people against Obama. However, the point that I want to make is not intended to be racial.

Two posts ago I mentioned how Rudy Giuliani's campaign has staked it's life on Florida -- essentially telling the citizens of the previous states that they don't matter. Unfortunately, Mr. Clinton's comments follow this same basic trend: trying to convince the general population that a smaller group of voters don't matter. The implications of Mr. Clinton's statements (and the statements of others, including fellow Poughkeepsie Journal bloggers, as well as those who comment on those blogs) are that South Carolinians are unintelligent, misinformed, and out-of-touch. And that because they chose Sen. Obama (apparently like they chose Jesse Jackson in '84 and '88), their opinions should obviously matter less than that of other voters.

I really can't stand people who claim to love America, but clearly can't stand Americans.

"Slumlord"

I know that for many, it is difficult to imagine a presidential race without negative mud-slinging. Positive messages are so...ineffective when it comes to turning-off voters and suppressing their votes. And often times, the arrival of dirty accusations to a campaign is usually the sign of the regular things: a loss of momentum, frustration, desperation.

I watched just about all of CNN's Democratic presidential debate on Monday night. I mostly enjoy watching these contests, be it the Democrats or the Republicans, but Monday was unlike any debate that I had ever seen. Right from the beginning, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama bombarded each other with accusation after accusation, speaking over each other time and time again. Sen. Obama spent the early part of the debate rebutting Sen. Clinton's numerous allegations. Sen. Clinton spent the early part of the debate abdicating any and all responsibility for her husband's actions. I have never seen two politicians of the same party go after each other like they did on Monday night. And poor former Senator John Edwards was simply left waiting.

But the one comment that stood out the most to me was uttered by Sen. Clinton. You know, language is a funny thing. Certain words, on there own, are good. Certain words, on there own, are bad. And certain words, on there own, are diabolical. One of these words is "slumlord." I was not in the room when Sen. Clinton associated Sen. Obama with a "slumlord" -- but I heard it from the kitchen. And I went nuts. Expletive - deleted. I ran back into the room: did she really just say that? Did she really just say that?! What a despicable, slimy, pathetic thing to say. I feel like I should wash my mouth out with soap for just listening to it and writing this blog about it.

Now, defending who Barack Obama is or is not associated with is not my point. From what I understand, the "slumlord" is a man named Tony Rezko, who has contributed to Barack Obama's various campaigns, and who was, in the recent past, indicted (Sen. Obama recently stated that he was donating all of Rezko's donations to charity) -- but that is not my point. My point is that Hillary Clinton is a very smart person who obviously has a command of language. And she knows that she could have articulated her point using other language. But she chose not to. She chose instead to knowingly use a word that would infect the campaign like an illness, hoping that Sen. Obama's campaign would die from it. I can imagine Hillary Clinton saying to her staff: "I'm not as confident as I was that we are going to win this thing. So, plan B: let's stop trying to win, and focus instead on destroying Barack Obama -- by any means necessary."

Hillary Clinton - despicable, slimy, pathetic. So much for positive.

You Guys Don't Matter

The current presidential campaign tactics of Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani have recently been under a lot of scrutiny. For the Republicans, the first six primary contests have come and gone, and yet Mr. Giuliani has not received double-digit voter support (he almost got there with 9% in New Hampshire, but is still seeking that elusive "10"). So, the real question is: why is Mr. Giuliani still in this race? The answer is simple: he doesn't care about Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Carolina, or Wyoming.

Mr. Giuliani has his sights set squarely on Florida. This year, Florida's 57 delegates are up for grabs (their normal number of 114 were cut in half by the RNC for holding their primary too early), and if Mr. Giuliani can win them, he will be right back in this race. This strategy, however, is very risky, and many of the talking heads on television are questioning the logic and intelligence behind it. I, too, question his tactics.

I do not think that Mr. Giuliani has much of a chance of being the 2008 Republican presidential candidate. Others disagree with me. Obviously winning Florida would bring him back into the thick of things, but I would hope that Americans everywhere are smart enough to see that all Mr. Giuliani is doing is looking at the states with the early contests and saying, "Yeah, you guys don't matter." Wow, can you imagine having a candidate gaining the nomination after he has demonstrated publicly that he doesn't care about 12% of the country? And if he does gain the nomination, can you imagine him winning in the general election? I can't.

I have long thought that Rudy Giuliani's run for this nation's highest office is a joke. He did good things as a US Attorney and Mayor of New York City, but is so grossly unqualified for the job of President of the United States that it boggles the mind. I recently had a conservative acquaintance tell me that he may win due to his strong terrorism experience. I responded (perhaps too quickly) that he doesn't have any terrorism experience. "Except for actually having to deal with it," he quickly replied. Well, by that criteria, ever paramedic who has ever been in charge of the scene of a car accident is obviously qualified to be Secretary of Transportation. Right. I don't know why opponents don't bring this up more often, but do you know why there is so much film of Mr. Giuliani walking around NYC on September 11, 2001? Because he had the bright idea of putting his emergency command and control center in the World Trade Center, which had already been the target of a terrorist attack in 1993.

That's definitely the mind that I want in the Oval Office.

The Obama Office Opening

Last night, out of my general interest and excitement for the current presidential campaign, I attended the opening of the Barack Obama campaign office at 12 Raymond Ave., in Poughkeepsie. I had never been to one of these events before, so I really didn't know what to expect.

The place was packed. I got there just before the scheduled start time of 7PM, and I had to push my way through all the people. And more kept coming, forcing others into the side-rooms where media interviews were taking place. I did my best to hold onto my spot near the front of the room. Finally, around 7:15, the organizers began speaking: this is who we are, this is what we're doing, this is why we're doing it, and here's how you can help. The crowd was very energetic, joining into the conversation, and breaking into chants of "Fired Up!" and "Yes, We Can!" I really had never experienced anything like it.

There were 3 things that really caught my attention:

1 - The comparisons to Bobby Kennedy. As it turns out, I am not the only who thinks that the energy Obama creates is similar to Bobby Kennedy -- many of the seasoned event attendees stated that they had not felt this way about a candidate since his presidential run in 1968.

2 - The diversity of the supporters. Everyone there wasn't from the same walk of life. There were politicians, school teachers, college students, and more. Male and female. Black, White, Hispanic, Asian. Seasoned and young. Very encouraging.

3 - The number of vocal Republicans in attendance. I was not expecting that at all.

4 - The fact that over 100 people could assemble peaceably in support of a presidential candidate and not live in fear of violence or repercussion. While I was standing there, listening to the speakers enthuse the crowd, the thought suddenly popped into my mind that there are a lot of countries on this planet where this would not be allowed; where those participated in such rallies would be putting themselves in serious danger -- either from the public, the government, or both. This really is a great country.

Shortly after leaving the rally, I encountered a longtime friend of mine. When I told him where I was coming from, he made a face as if to say, "What could you possibly be doing there?" And that's when I remembered that politics is taboo in our country, and that the "left" is supposed to hate the "right," and vice versa. But it's all good, because I then proceeded to destroy him in poker -- twice.

(Pictured above: Obama For America New York State Field Director Joyce Stanley Johnson, speaking to supporters)

National Politics Come Local

A few minutes ago, I checked onto PoughkeepsieJournal.com to read the local headlines, and what did I find? A brief article entitled, "Obama campaign to open office in the Town of Poughkeepsie." This, to me, is fantastic.

Shortly after the New Hampshire primary, I began to feel like I had missed a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to view this nation's leaders up-close. In hindsight, maybe I should have spent 2 days traveling around New Hampshire in my car, visiting campaign event after campaign event, hearing first-hand what the candidates have to say. After all, Poughkeepsie to Nashua, NH, is only about 225 miles; I could make it in less than 4 hours. And where else would you be able to find so many current and former elected officials in one area, fighting for face-time with voters?

However, according to the story on PoughkeepsieJournal.com, it seems that Sen. Barack Obama may be planning a trip to the Hudson Valley sometime between now and February 5th, which is the date of the New York primary. This excites me very much: the thought of the national presidential campaign coming into our own backyard. Now we just need the rest of them to set up similar offices. I want Poughkeepsie bustling with presidential campaigns.

The 2008 State of the State

I have always found it very difficult to get excited about the State of the State. Maybe it's because I don't find it very engaging. Maybe it's because I prefer the grandeur of national politics. Maybe it's because it is on during the middle of the day. Whatever the reason, I never seem to go out of my way to watch the State of the State the way that I go out of my way to watch the State of the Union.

Consequently, I find it difficult to write this entry about the 2008 New York State of the State Address. I simply lack the motivation. And this is not to put down the many state officials who are working tirelessly to make the lives of New Yorkers better -- my lack of enthusiasm should in no way reflect displeasure with their efforts.

But, I was able to catch just a few minutes of Gov. Spitzer's State of the State on Wednesday, and what I missed live I researched here (as can you).

Obviously, the initiative that effects our local community the most (and positively, I might add) is the proposed investment in the revitalization of the Poughkeepsie Rail Bridge, turning it into a state park complete with a walkway and a bike path. If the plan goes through, it would bring the local economy construction jobs, as well as employment opportunities for staffers once the park is completed. The bridge has been in a state of non-use for 24 years, since the fire in May of 1974.

I found myself feeling surprisingly enthused at Gov. Spitzer's education proposals -- specifically his higher education proposals. As a product of the SUNY system, I am all for the growth and expansion of SUNY and CUNY establishements, as well as keeping New York at the forefront of the educational community. The fact is that education is the most important issue in the state, as well as the country, and we need to tackle it head-on. A quality education for all is the best way to alleviate a multitude of problems that we face in our society, and the stature of our educational system (especially K-12, which Gov. Spitzer also addressed) is falling unacceptably behind that of other developed nations.

Other high points to me include increased funding for Child Health Plus, Veteran's Tuition Coverage, and the Upstate Revitalization Fund, which I very much support.

I just hope that it all gets done.

Keep Your Coins...

The results from last night's New Hampshire primary are very disappointing to me. There is a real force for change among a great number of people in this country, but apparently the Granite State didn't get the memo. My disappointment is so great that it even overshadows my joy in the fact that Sen. John McCain won the New Hampshire primary, rightfully beating Govs. Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee (especially Romney).

I do not like Senator Hillary Clinton. I find her to be cold and calculating, and the thought of her being our next president does not fill me with hope for the following 4 (or 8) years. Furthermore, I look at her and former President Bill Clinton out on the campaign trail, and I simply see two people struggling to regain the power that they once had. The difference between those who support Sen. Clinton and myself is that they want a switch-up, while I want a shake-up. They want to go back to the years 1993-2001, while I want to move forward. They want Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton, while I don't want to spend the first 28-32 years of my life under the rule of two families. They want the status quo, while I want real change. Does that mean electing Sen. Obama? I don't know. I seem to be finding that the more years you've spent in this country, the less you feel that the country is "ready" for a black president. I have also spoken to a number of people who fear that Sen. Obama may very well meet the same fate as late President John F. Kennedy, and his brother Bobby -- and probably by the same powers. Younger citizens, I think, tend to have a more optimistic view -- maybe we just haven't seen with our own eyes what has happened in the past to people who truly represent change.

Regardless, this country needs to get out of the back-and-forth of the past 20+ years, and to move forward into the upcoming ones -- there is so much potential to be harnessed. While I was watching the returns last night, I had the sudden strong urge to register in the Democratic Party, if for no other reason than so I can vote against Sen. Clinton. I've got until Friday to decide.

Dear Mayor Tkazyik

Dear Mayor Tkazyik,

First of all, let me apologize. You see, I have not been to your family's restaurant, Andy's Place, in many years. I used to eat there regularly when I was younger and frequented Marist basketball games, as well as when my kitchen was "out of order." Those days have past, but I have good memories.

And with that out of the way, I would like to congratulate you on your ascension to the office of Mayor of the City of Poughkeepsie. I'm sure this will come as no shock to you, but you have a lot of work ahead. However, aside from the obvious problems that you will have to face (i.e. crime, economy, infrastructure development/maintenance, etc.), I would like to stress just a few things:

1. Winter is upon us, and in the past, snow removal in the City of Poughkeepsie has been, in a word, awful. When driving into the City of Poughkeepsie after a snowfall, whether from the north, south, or east, one can easily tell where the Town of Poughkeepsie ends, and the City of Poughkeepsie begins. Furthermore, substantial snowfall can cause serious problems with alternate side of the street parking. Monday through Saturday, cars must be moved to the opposite side of the street before 9AM. However, the opposite side of the street is rarely, if ever, plowed by that time to allow for parking. I realize that there are only so many DOT workers available at any given time, and that there is a lot of plowing to be done when there is snowfall, but I would like you to keep it in mind. It maybe seen by some as a minuscule issue, but it could make a lot of people's lives better.

2. During the fall campaign season, your Democratic challenger, Fred Knapp, stated in his campaign that the city government should be more involved with the local school district. I think that this is a stellar idea. Those enrolled in our public school system need all the help they can get, and there are a number of ways that the two governments can compliment each other to benefit the students -- maybe through joint meetings to exchange ideas, or through student-to-government work and learning programs, where students spend time at city buildings to get first-hand experience.

3. Please do not focus your attention on asinine legislation; whether or not people dry their laundry in their front or side yards is not one of my major concerns. I never noticed this, but apparently there was a rash of front yard clothes drying going on that was debilitating our city. And I was concerned about the crime. Stupid me.

Best of luck to you as you endeavor on your 4-year term as Mayor of the City of Poughkeepsie.

Sincerely,
Steve Schultz

P.S. How much for a hot dog and fries? I used to love those things...

.27% Of A Year: Reaction

At 5:50PM on January 4, 2008, anonymous wrote:

The solution to the american apathy towards voting is a mandatory voting law with a fine for not voting. The fines could be used to fund the campaigns and the whole system would straighten up.

Anonymous, you may be right in your thinking that only a law that punishes those who don't vote will bring more participation. However, I don't think that we should have one. As much as you may not like it, people should have just as much of a right to not vote, as they have to vote. Also, who would enforce this law?

At 11:42PM on January 5, 2008, hydeparkny wrote:

Never mind mandates, fines or holidays. Dip your finger in ink at the polling place. Anyone who falsely inks their finger to appear as though they voted never gets to vote again. Never again. If not voting is grounds for public shame, voter apathy will correct itself.

Hydeparkny, should people required to dip their fingers in ink when they vote? What if they don't want to? I would refer to my statement above that everyone should have the right to not vote. And the government, state or federal, should not be looking to shame or entice negative reactions toward people who don't vote.

The 2008 Iowa Caucas

The Democratic Results:
Obama
Edwards
Clinton
Richardson
Biden
Dodd
Gravel
Kucinich

The Democrats:
I am enthused that Sen. Barack Obama won the Iowa Democratic Caucus last night, and watching his victory speech, it was tough for me to not want to jump onto the Obama bandwagon. He now has an immense amount of momentum going into New Hampshire, much to the dismay of Sen. Hillary Clinton and former Sen. John Edwards. As I watched him, I thought of Bobby Kennedy. I was not alive during the time of Mr. Kennedy, but from what I have read, seen, and studied, I feel there is a great many similarities between his time and ours, as well as himself and Mr. Obama. Both are Democrats. Both are anti-war candidates (Mr. Kennedy was running during the Vietnam War). Both have an enthusiasm and energy that is rarely seen in politics. Both receive, by and large, the support of the young. Both are working for genuine change.

But the thing about last night that really got me motivated was the fact that Sen. Hillary Clinton came in third. Her nomination was inevitable, we were told. She has the most money, we were told. These primaries are merely a formality, we were told. I think not. She didn't even have the majority support of women caucus-goers; they were overwhelmingly for Mr. Obama. She is the status quo. She is not change of any kind, merely more of the same.

Sens. Chris Dodd and Joe Biden, having not done well at all in last night's caucus, have announced that they are giving up on their campaigns for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. I feel slightly bad for Mr. Dodd, since he had moved his family to Iowa in order to campaign. Sorry.

The Republican Results:
Huckabee
Romney
Thompson
McCain
Paul
Guiliani
Hunter

The Republicans:
Take a seat, Mr. Romney. You spent over $6 million on ad-buys alone, and you still came in second. I don't like you, and the Republican Party would be lost in the woods if you were the nominee.

Mr. Huckabee, congratulations on your win, and I applaud you showing that you can't buy the Iowa Caucus, but as I have stated in a previous post, you are still a lightweight. I don't care what Chuck Norris thinks about politics...or really about anything, because he starred in "Walker, Texas Ranger." Enough said. Also, you haven't got a clue what's going out outside of our country.
The best piece of news culled from the Iowa Republican Caucus, however, is that Sen. John McCain, who had spent minimal time in Iowa, came in third, and even though they are tied in percentage, he beat former Sen. Fred Thompson in number of votes received. Watch out for him in New Hampshire on Tuesday.

In Conclusion:
I think that Fred Thompson should get out of the race. He is out of touch with Americans, and he will not be elected by acting like a bully. This is not TV.

I think that Rudy Giuliani's strategy of blowing off the first 4 or 5 presidential primary contests is a terrible one. I don't know if it's ignorance or apathy, but he is not going to recover.

Rep. Duncan Hunter should end his campaign for the White House. I mean, really, what's the point?

I not sure that Ron Paul, though he has the most funds to work with, will be able to compete with the overall public support of the upper candidates.

I think that Mitt Romney will not win the New Hampshire Primary, thus completely decimating his plan of winning both Iowa and New Hampshire. This will end his campaign...I hope.

I think that Hillary Clinton will continue to not do as well as everyone knew she would.

I think that the Obama train will be hard to stop with all this steam behind it.

I think that an Obama/Edwards ticket would be a very viable contender in the general election; Obama's candidacy would bring astronomical black turnout, and Edwards would help with southern support.

For the Republicans, I would like to see John McCain as the presidential candidate. I would not like to see any of the current Republicans in the race be the VP candidate, since they are all pathetic. Maybe someone like Sen. Chuck Hagel? We'll see.

And one last note: The number of caucus-goers last night was well over 300,000; an extremely high number, which is great. However, Democratic caucus-goers out-numbered Republicans 2-to-1. I think that this is a sign of things to come for the general election in November.

.27% Of A Year

The eve of the 2008 presidential primary season has got me thinking of the U.S. election system as a whole. According to CNN.com, 121,480,019 votes were cast in the 2004 presidential election. That's pathetic. The United States has a population over 300 million, but less than 40% voted in the 2004 general election. According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, as of 2005, over 72% of the population is of voting age -- a difference of over 32%. Again, I say: that's pathetic.

The United States needs to establish the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November as a National Voting Holiday. Suffrage is such an important feature of our political system that the government should do everything in it's power to encourage every single person eligible to vote to do so. "No matter who you vote for, just make sure you vote." Yes, I'm sure I've heard that somewhere before.

One of the problems, however, comes from those already in office. Incumbents, by and large, benefit from depressed voter turnout, and they would rather not make it easier for the other 32% of the population to voice their opinion if it doesn't coincide with their re-election. And since the current lawmakers are the ones who make the laws, I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

In the end, this country is long overdue for a National Voting Holiday. And all is said and done, what's one more national holiday? It's only about .27% of a year. Or maybe, as some have suggested, a National Voting Holiday should be combined with Veteran's Day. What better way to honor those who fight for our freedom?

The 2012 Iowa Democratic Caucus

I will stave off my New Year's exhaustion to bring you my plans for the 2012 Iowa Democratic Caucus.

Though I have been alive for 5 presidential primary seasons, the 2008 season will be the first season that will really and truly have my attention. I did vote in the 2004 election, however at the time I was not enthralled with politics enough to invest a considerable amount of energy learning about the primary contests. That has since changed.

If you are not familiar with how the Iowa Democratic Caucus system works, please click here and watch this video before reading on (it is important to note, however, that while this video was produced by Sen. Barack Obama's campaign, I am not attempting to win support for him -- I simply searched for "Iowa Caucus 2008" and this video came up on top).

This system is fantastic. This system is phenomenal. I love this system, because it is simple and complex at the same time, and you have to want it bad.

Simple: Anyone can show up to caucus, and its easy to register.

Complex: Actually having to interact with other caucus-goers and try to convince them to support one candidate over another is something that we New Yorkers are not accustomed to. We are accustomed, by and large, to our private opinions and our secret ballots. The Iowa Democratic Caucus is not like that. The Iowa Democratic Caucus is advanced citizenship, which is rarely seen in these United States.

I want to go to the 2012 Iowa Democratic Caucus, if just to be a fly on the wall, and to be surrounded by citizens who want it bad, instead of the norm. Unless, of course, a Democrat wins the presidency in November -- then it would probably just be boring.