Regardless of who we're supporting in the Democratic Primary, I think most of us can agree that this has been an extremely unique and interesting process, not just becaue we've been given two extremely competent candidates, but also because of the deep look at American society and the media that this campaign has exposed.

To me, one of the most interesting things is the by product between of having an African-American and a Woman running for president - an extended look at racism and sexism in our society.  

To compare the two directly, I think that sexism is more widespread in our society (and is unfortunately considered acceptable in some circumstances), but racism continues to be a greater problem, partially because of the total lack of vocabulary to describe racism.

** NOTE: THIS IS INVESTIGATION IN PROGRESS.  I NEED THE COMMUNITY'S ASSISTANCE.  PLEASE REC **

I've been researching the website www.obamaunveiled.com over the last several weeks, attempting to track down the owner(s).  I now have reason to believe that this site is being run by an individual named - Navid Keshavarz-Nia, an computer/IT PhD with apparent links to various companies, including Defense Contractor Northop Grumman and BEA Systems.

This story is still developing.  I've verified the ownership of the website, but have NOT verified employment with Northrop Grumman.

From Obama Heads for Superdelegate Edge:

His campaign also just announced a 50-state voter mobilization. That reflects another pitch to nonelected party officials: That Sen. Obama would work to build the party even in Republican "red" states, and has the money to do it, while Sen. Clinton focuses only on Democratic "blue" states and battlegrounds such as Ohio.

Interviews with party officials suggest this appeal has effectively exploited lingering resentments that the DNC, under President Clinton, abandoned the red states. "Obama has made it absolutely clear he's committed to the 50-state strategy, and the Clintons obviously aren't," says Nebraska party chairman Steve Achepohl, who endorsed Sen. Obama last week. "That's a major factor for all the party people in smaller states."

One of the most frustrating things about being a sports and news fan is watching the way that broadcast journalism has inevitably followed in the footsteps of sports journalism.  And while sports journalism

And when I run across a story like this (about Roger Clemens extra-marital affair with country singer Mindy McCready):

We’re no closer to the truth about Clemens
So along comes this Mindy McCready, attempting a comeback before I knew she was ever here, and when she hands over a Miller Lite sixer stuffed with Roger Clemens’ DNA, we should care.

It makes me realize that sports journalism is starting to turn the corner and has, in fact, more ethics than standard broadcast journalism.  This gives me some hope that broadcast journalism may begin to abandon the "throw the news out there" mentality and realize that there is enough real news that sensationalism is pointless and ethically devoid.

I started crunching number this weekend and discovered something that completely blew my mind. Superdelegates account for a greater number of delegates than any state in the union.  In fact:

They account for more delegates than New York state and California COMBINED
The following list of states combined has one less delegate (719) than the number of superdelegates (720)

Iowa, New Hampshire, Alaska, S. Carolina, Utah, Oklahoma, N. Dakota, Idaho, Deleware, Kansas, New Mexico, Connecticut, Arkansas, Nebraska, Maine, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wyoming. (20 states)

And that list was thrown together. You could probably take out a couple larger ones and get up to 25, maybe even 28-29 if you cheat and use the foreign territores.

I don't think we'll ever get rid of the superdelegates, and I do believe in the institution stepping in when it needs to; however, this politicking, string it out stuff they're doing right now is either selfish, cowardly, or principled (in which case I doubt they'd mind a different approach).

The solution? Combine the superdelegates into their own winner take all, 50 delegate caucus.  That way the institution can speak as a whole, or withhold its voice.

I think this extended primary season has many of us wishing that it was a touch shorter.  In this age of media saturation, it's easier to deliver a national message, so the original intent of primaries working like this goes down the drain.  So, maybe it's time to reform our primary system.

Some have suggested a National primary, but that doesn't work for me because it heavily favors institutional candidates and candidates with massive funding.  It also doesn't ever test and try a candidate to get them ready for the general election.  We need a primary system that:

1. Slowly ramps up to narrow the field to serious candidates

2. Doesn't end too quickly so that every state conceivably can get their say in

3. Doesn't have ridiculous six week gaps

4. Increases in states, as the contest goes on, to either help deliver a knockout or increase the stakes.  Also, this will help show, both traditional campaigning and the ability to run a national campaign, leading to a good narrative.

I propose one that increases the number of states exponentially, summarily, asymptotically exponential (thx sp0t), using the Fibonacci sequence.

From Candidates on equal footing in Indiana

In Lake County, Obama was a household name well before the presidential race.

“The northwest part of our state considers itself part of Chicago,” says Matthew Tully, political columnist for the Indianapolis Star and a Gary native. “They get Chicago TV and read Chicago papers and have been watching Obama grow up as a politician for years now.

The other large cities in Indiana (Fort Wayne & Indianapolis) have large black populations and there are 3 large colleges in the rural areas of the state (Indiana University in Bloomington, Purdue in W. Layfayette and Ball State in Muncie).  

One area where this prolonged battle is hurting us is the lack of establishment to protect our major candidates from baseless attacks about nothing.  We're depending on Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann to defend the Democrats, but where's John Edwards, Howard Dean, and Al Gore?

They're all on the sidelines.  Meanwhile, completely baseless claims are passing off as news without heavy hitters to come in and spank the media into place.

If we ARE going for this 50-state primary process, which is actually a good idea, we need these heavy hitters to get off the sidelines to start:

A) Defending our candidates against all the meaningless political attacks
B) Attacking John McCain who has been going around playing howdy-doody, gaffing left and right, unchallenged and unnoticed.