Much has been written and said about the media's slant during the election process. Towards the end of February the Clinton campaign began chanting a steady mantra claiming unfair bias against Hillary. During a televised debate she complained about the unfairness of receiving the first question. Yet at the Compassion debate after winning a coin flip, she chose to receive the first questions. To date, I've seen none of the media address her obvious flip flop.

Much of the Clinton strategy has centered about her experience, 35 years, she claimed. To that end she assures us that she has been vetted while Obama is an unknown and must go through the process.

Each day last week brought forth another Hillary broadside attacking Senator Obama. Not his policies. That wouldn't change many minds. So her campaign fashioned perhaps the most effective assault upon Barack in a blue collar world. She has effectively castrated him in front of the whole country. Listen to the conversations flooding the media.

Senator Obama can't close the deal. He is painted as a wimp. After the San Francisco tape all the comments forthcoming painted him as an elitist. Remember when she claimed he hadn't passed the commander in chief test? And who was the only one running for election that hadn't strapped on a sidearm.  Meanwhile Bill Clinton reminded the media that Obama was a whiner. What have all these portrayals in common? They all speak to the manhood of Mr. Obama, or rather to the lack of it.

In the past month I've spent some time in the political blogosphere. That's new to me. Not because I'm computer illiterate, simply because I prefer spending more time elsewhere. Like many novices, it became almost addictive. And because it's always on, like infomercials, my sleep time completely turned upside down.

It seemed as if this was a place representative of the people that supported my candidate and the ones trying to prevent the election of that person. To my surprise, I too often found passion for each candidate displayed in words that were truly hateful. Words were written that would never be said face to face. "You're guy isn't fit crawl". "You're woman is an idiot". There's so much anger being being vented that what began as a competition turned into a life or death struggle for too many people on here. Is it any wonder why almost 20% of each candidate's followers said they'd never vote for the other person in the race?

One of the suggestions presented is that supers should be tied to the results in the states they represent. The Clinton campaign have suggested that Senators Kerry and Kennedy and Governor Richardson should in fact be pledging to her candidacy because their particular states went for the Senator.

With the battle between Senators Clinton and Obama generating nightly news, the public has been given a sense of division within the Democratic Party. Conversely Senator McCain has been able to convey a pattern of a consensus candidate with few flaws. His national numbers have risen and his negatives are least among the candidates.

But what is the truth that will drive the GE? During the primaries McCain only won the election because of the win it all system in the GOP. While he frequently won all the delegates, he seldom won a majority of votes. He won 30% in Michigan and only 36% in Florida. Are the numbers of Alabama 37%, Tennessee 32% and South Carolina 33% evidence of a strong southern strategy?

When Senator Obama began his march towards the presidency, he was faced with a monumental task. He was in a 12% minority and no black candidate had ever gotten close to a nomination. The smart planners decided quite wisely that he had to be presented as a very non- threatening rather bland dresser. No gaudy jewelry, no short sleeves, and usually a suit and tie. The handlers did a great job. For the most part, white America has accepted him. Unfortunately, as time went on, for whatever reasons, his numbers in the white community and particularly the lower income voters began to turn away from him. Many of these voters are referred to as Reagan Democrats.

Where are these voters? They're in the Pennsylvania between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. They're in Ohio's 6th which gave Clinton over 70% and Texas cities like Port Arthur. Most of these voters are very patriotic, community oriented and fairly stable in that they've lived in the area much of their lives.

Ask yourself what almost all of the men in those areas are interested?  It happens to be one area that neither Clinton nor McCain can compete. It's sports. It could be football or baseball or basketball depending on the season or area, but it's definitely sports. Isn't it time to get some photo ops of Barack dropping a jumper from the key or grabbing a rebound? How about fielding a grounder or hauling in a pass. If you want to relate to blue collar America, you have to give them more than lofty visions of the future. Put some sweats and sneakers on Barack and let the people see him sweat because that's what many of the blue collar workers respect.

As anyone can tell you, anything that isn't a straight up vote by machine is full of confusion and missteps. I don't necessarily agree that the caucus on top of the primary vote was a good idea. However, that was the decision made by the SDP and the voters worked with what they were given.

Was it a perfect election? No. However, it did represent the intent of the party. The fact that more Obama people attended the caucus than Clinton people seems obvious. I'm also confidant that there were mistakes made by both Obama and Clinton people.

But the point is, were the results representative of the intent of the party to allow delegate selection based upon caucus attendance? Would anyone suggest that we negate all elections not 100% according to Roberts Rules? In that case, we might as well stop having any voting.

In my precinct every attendee was verified by both a Clinton and Obama supporter. People with questionable verification were marked as provisional. We don't have to verify one million signatures. All we have to do is verify that the 9 provisional voters out of 150 are actually on the voter roll which wasn't available to us that night.

But make no mistake about it. This is a underhanded attempt by the Clinton campaign to disenfranchise the caucus voters in Texas. It seems they believe a non sanctioned vote in two states is valid but a sanctioned vote with acceptable flaws isn't.