The political party claiming the right "change" and "experience" to lead our nation and given by all pollsters the best chance to win the White House in November is decomposing right before our eyes. Only Eliot Spitzer (for different reasons) decomposed faster.

The Democrats claim they can best run the Federal Government, but can't seem to run their own presidential nominating process.  Consider the chaos:
In 1972, the Democrats jettisoned the smoke filled rooms where party bosses produced Hubert Humphrey's nomination in 1968 in favor of modern open primaries where the popular vote would determine the nominee. To make the process even more "fair" and "democratic", in most states delegates were apportioned according to the percentage of the popular vote a candidate received.

However, States retained the right to designate the method of delegate selection.  By 2008, a patchwork of elections, caucuses, and state conventions meant each state had separate and complex rules presenting the candidates with, in effect, 50 separate elections. So, for example, a month after Hillary Clinton decisively won the popular vote in the Texas Democratic Primary Election, election officials there have only counted half the votes from the caucuses held election night after the polls closed. The caucus tally to date actually could lead to Barack Obama getting more Texas delegates than Hillary Clinton !

Then consider Michigan and Florida, two key states who moved their primaries up to January even though the Democratic National Committee and the Presidential candidates said that those state delegates would not be seated at the Convention if they did so. Both states voted majority for Clinton who was on the ballot in both primaries. In Michigan, Obama was not on the ballot, but "uncommitted" got 40% of the vote ! Now, does the DNC go ahead and seat these delegates even though a fair contest between the candidates did not occur, hold another election in these states, or continue to bar delegates from these critical states from the Convention ?  What a mess !

With only a handful of state primaries to go (representing about 600 delegates), Obama has a slight delegate lead over Clinton, but if current voting trends continue to split the delegates about 50-50, neither candidate will get anywhere near the 2025 delegates it takes to win the nomination before the August convention in Denver.

In caucus states, which are mostly smaller and Republican, Obama has done much better than Clinton due to superior organization and grassroots volunteer enthusiasm.  Clinton has done much better in larger, Democratic states.  Obama has done better among  men, higher educated, younger, and black voters.  Clinton has done better among women, less educated, older, and hispanic voters. With no real policy differences between the two virtually tied candidates, the Democratic Party is on the verge of splitting in two on the basis of personality, race, gender, and generational divide.

Confident of Democratic victory in November, the battle for the Party nomination is playing out like a Shakespeare tragedy.  Talk of a "dream ticket" combining Obama and Clinton has only increased the rancor between the two candidates with Clinton wondering aloud "who would be on top" and Obama wondering why the candidate with the most votes and delegates should have to consider being V.P. to "the loser". Ouch !  Absent either candidate "running the table" in the handful of primaries left through June 3, how will this mess be resolved ?

The answer might be the "Superdelegates". In the years since the "reforms" of 1972, Democratic Party bosses and power brokers have re-inserted themselves.  About 800 unelected "Superdelegates" to the nominating convention have been named this year from the ranks of the Democratic National Committee, and from elected Democratic Mayors, Governors, and members of Congress. In past Presidential Election years, the nominee has wrapped up the 2025 delegates in the primary process and the superdelegates have rubber stamped the voters' choice at the Convention.

In 2008, these UNELECTED 800 superdelegates hold the power to swing the nomination to Clinton or Obama. Given this is the modern Democratic Party, the power brokers and party bosses will meet in smoke free rooms to determine the identity of the "Democratic" nominee.

Imagine for a moment, the impact of the superdelegates selecting Clinton when Obama has more delegates and more primary votes. But the selection of Obama is just as problematical.  Does anyone think the Clintons will enthusiastically support the upstart junior Senator who derailed her lifelong ambition and entitlement to the nomination ?

Is this any way to run the "Democratic" Party ? Is this the kind of "change" and "experience" the American Voter is looking for in November ? Democrats keep decomposing like this and the seemingly outlandish prediction by President Bush this week of a Republican victory in November could come true.

Journalism students are drilled in the "who, what, when, where, why". The essence of a free press is to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  Today's politically correct media tells the truth that fits their political agenda; reporters too often tell the story according to a template of what's acceptable. A free press cannot be a self censored press. Without a free press fully informing us, our democracy cannot function.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about.

Last week, the venerable New York Times smeared Senator John McCain in a front page article leaving the impression that the Senator had a romantic relationship with an attractive young(er) blond lobbyist and did favors for her client.  In truth, there was no romance and no favors.

Lost in this confrontation was the much more serious (and factual) story of the "Reform Institute" started by McCain after his defeat for President in 2000 to keep his campaign team together and provide a base for lobbying for his legislative agenda. The "Institute" was funded, in part, by George Soros (of moveon.org fame) and Theresa Heinz Kerry--prominent leftists who provided the funding for McCain's campaign in exile and for liberal legislation like McCain-Kennedy (amnesty for illegal immigrants) and McCain-Lieberman ($.50 gas tax increase to fight global warming).

None of this made the New York Times or any other part of the media wing of the Democratic Party because to them the obvious conflict between the Soros/Kerry funding and McCain's current claim to be a "conservative" is not news--they LIKE the Soros/McCain connection. Are we as a free society best served by this kind of selective "news" ?

Another example.

Last week brought tragic news in national headlines and lots of cable news coverage of a crash which killed 4 students riding in a school bus in Minnesota. Rarely mentioned, and only thoroughly explored in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, were facts concerning the driver of the van who caused the accident.  She was an illegal alien employed in the local Hormel plant, with no drivers license and no insurance driving a vehicle she did not own.  She sped through a stop sign, became airborne over a railroad crossing and slammed  broadside into the school bus. She gave arresting police a false name.  They called ICE (immigration) which is still investigating.

It has become routine in too many "news" reports of accidents like this one (or of other crimes) to omit the immigration status of the perp ? Why ? Isn't this a part of the story ?  Shouldn't "we the people" know the facts--or is this information "too sensitive" i.e. too likely to lead to the conclusion that the Bush open border policy killed those kids ?

Another example.

The recent shooting at Northern Illinois University that left 5 students dead and a score in the hospital got plenty of national attention in the media.  From the carnage and mayhem of the initial coverage to the final lament about the lack of gun control several news cycles later, this story again was filtered through a familiar liberal haze.

Only some days later did some news sources reveal more of the background on this 27 year old "ex-student".  Seems he had studied Arabic and had attended classes about "injustice" in the Middle East--meaning the existence of Israel.  The "student" praised Hamas and greeted fellow students in Arabic at these classes.  Was the shooting the product of some generalized problem or more particularly a product of American University leftist bias ?

As soon as this question was posed and this part of the "students" background exposed, the national media dropped the story like a hot rock.  How politically incorrect to suggest a terrorist copycat inspired by leftist professors ! That's not "news" !!

The examples could fill a book. You probably have many of your own.  The point is--there is no free press where the press is self censored; where the whole truth dare not be reported if it contradicts the politically acceptable line.
The reluctance of a free press to report the whole truth no matter what the political implications is a blow to American Democracy.

John McCain may have the delegates to win the Republican nomination, but he has yet to win the minds and hearts of voters who are conservative first and Republican second.

John McCain has asked the American conservative voter to judge him by "the company he keeps".  Fair enough. 

The company he keeps is precisely why conservatives distrust John McCain will carry Reagan Republicanism into the White House.

First, there is the now familiar litany of Senator McCain's legislative "accomplishments".  McCain-Lieberman would add 50 cents a gallon to the price of gasoline to fight global warming.  McCain-Feingold "reformed" campaign finance laws to restrict your first amendment rights in the last 60 days before an election.  McCain-Kennedy would have granted instant amnesty through a "Z visa" to every illegal alien in the United States.  For conservatives, this is not only bad company, this is bad law.

But, for conservatives, the bad company gets worse.

Following his defeat in the 2000 presidential race by George W. Bush, Senator McCain established what he called "The Reform Institute" in Alexandria, Virginia, just across the Potomac River from Washington, DC.  The purpose of this "institute" was to provide jobs for his key 2000 campaign staffers to keep the team together for 2008 and to provide a lobbying mechanism for his legislative goals (see above). 

Financing for "The Institute" came from George Soros and Theresa Heinz Kerry among others.  For conservatives, this is as bad as company gets.

In 2006, Senator McCain disassociated himself from "the Institute" after it was revealed that a $200,000 contribution to it had come from a company seeking an FCC ruling which senator McCain, as chairman of the relevant subcommittee in the Senate, had sent a supportive letter.  Shades of the Keating Five!

Senator McCain began his campaign to win over conservative voters he must count on if he is to win in November in a speech before CPAC, the conservative political action conference.  Before about 6000 conservative activists last month, Senator McCain emphasized his genuine conservative credentials with regard to the budget, pro-life, and a strong military. 

Booed when he mentioned immigration, Senator McCain vowed to secure the border.  Savvy conservatives remember George Bush's 2000 vow ("We gotta secure our border!") and are not impressed.  Without removing the magnet of illegal jobs, as Arizona and Oklahoma have done, no effort will ever "secure the border". 

It is on this point that Senator McCain especially fails his own test.  On immigration, the company he keeps is Juan Hernandez.  Senor Hernandez is a dual citizen of Mexico and the U.S. and was a former border policy advisor to Vicente Fox when he was President of Mexico.  Senor Hernandez is an open border advocate.  He is John McCain's "Hispanic outreach director" in the campaign. For conservatives, this is the worst company yet.

There is some time between now and when voters will finally make up their mind on the candidate of their choice for President in November.  It's John McCain's turn to convince voters, including conservatives.  To date, judged by his own standard of the company he keeps, John McCain does not deserve conservative voters' support.