Dems Need a Do-Over

I want to take this time to thank President George W. Bush. People don't give him enough credit (myself included). I won't deny the fact that two wars have been started under his watch, our civil liberties have been severely curtailed, the United States' standing on an international stage has severely diminished, we torture and all signs point to a recession. But I want to thank him anyway.

Why? With Bush's pathetic 30 percent approval rating and with nearly four-fifths of the population upset with the direction the country is heading, the president has become the best recruiter for the Democratic Party. He's got people running from the GOP into the open arms of Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama.

A recent Associated Press survey found that 52 percent of the population consider themselves to be Democrats, but only 35 percent consider themselves to be Republicans, a 2 percent decrease from December. Fifty-two percent may not seem like a lot, but it's more than enough to seal up a win in November.

Even New York, a state that's true blue already, has seen an increase in the number of Democrats, especially among voters 18 to 24 years old. A study from the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement found that the pool of young Democrats has almost tripled since 2000.

While this is great for all of us Dems, we've become greedy. We have two top-notch candidates this year and we can't seem to decide who we want to be in the White House. We want the charismatic charmer Obama, but we can't ignore Clinton's know-how and experience.

We have too much of a good thing and now we're stuck. The Buckeye and Lone Star states couldn't close the deal for Obama, and Hillary, after 11 consecutive defeats, has resurrected her ailing campaign. With the candidates' delegate count virtually even, party leaders are worried that come the Democratic National Convention in August, the donkeys won't have their candidate for president.

And a split in the Democratic Party is the worst thing that could happen. It could lead to all kinds of convention snafus and technical difficulties. Now Howard Dean and company are banging their heads against the wall trying to come up with some solution to prevent a potentially sticky situation.

Remember when Flordia and Michigan moved up the dates of their Democratic primaries without the consent of the party and were punished by being stripped of their delegates? That's now come to bite party leaders in the asses, since it effectively meant that the voters of those two states wouldn't be represented at the convention this August. Funny thing - it turns out we need those 367 delegates.

So now what? Both states have already held their primary elections, and Clinton won in both. But then again, Clinton was the only serious candidate on the ballot in Michigan - along with Mr. "Uncommitted" - and was the only candidate to really campaign in Florida.

If the Democratic Party knows what's best for it, it's time for a do-over. It's unfair to divvy up the delegates based on the original primary results (although Clinton wouldn't mind). But it's also unfair to disenfranchise voters from Florida and Michigan, most of whom had no say in determining the date of their state's primary election. That's two huge portions of the population who didn't get to voice their opinions.

But a presidential primary redo in both states could be the best of all worlds. If the Democratic Party had the states pay for their primary election, it would effectively punish them for moving their primary election date without consulting the party's approval. People from both states would be able to have their voices represented at the National Convention while candidates would be able to run a fair campaign in both states.

I realize it's a lot easier to say "just hold another election" than it is to actually plan and execute one. But if the Democratic Party can pull itself together, a primary do-over is completely feasible. Consider what's at stake. Who wants to be stuck with a Republican for another four years?