Caucuses are blatantly undemocratic:

1. Many people can't participate due to health, job or other concerns;

2. Support below a certain threshold, typically 15%, is treated as 0%.

Despite this, many people defend caucuses because they reflect the will of the most committed voters.

Who's more committed than the voters of Florida & Michigan who voted despite the fact they were told their votes wouldn't count?

They shouldn't be punished.

They should be rewarded.

Double 'em and add your age.

You heard it here first.

Obama-Henry '2008

Governor Brad Henry (D-OK)

First elected in 2002, he defeated former Congressman & Seattle Seahawk Steve Largent (R) in a squeaker.  Let's face it, anyone who can shut down a Hall of Fame Wide Receiver has got moves. During his first gubernatorial campaign, he barnstormed rural areas and, if he's not exactly pro-cockfighting, he doesn't appear to be anti-cockfighting either (take that Kentucky!)

 Re-elected in 2006 with 2/3 of the vote, so he knows how to build support.

<blockquote>An underdog when he won in 2002, Henry has seen his popularity soar because he has worked well with both parties to pass historic tax cuts, raise teacher pay and institute a lottery to benefit education.

The hot issues in this race are immigration, lawsuit reform and campaign contributions.

Istook (the Republican nominee) has criticized Henry for signing legislation that gives illegal immigrants access to in-state tuition at public colleges. Henry said he signed the bill after it received bipartisan support in the Legislature.

Istook also is focused on lawsuit reform and has attacked Henry, an attorney, for taking more than $300,000 from lawyers against any tort reform. Istook said he would create a cap on non-economic damages. Henry said he already signed a number of bills that would keep medical malpractice insurance rates down and improve access to quality health care.

Henry raised more than $3.4 million for his re-election bid. Although Istook raised $1.1 million, he is having trouble competing with a series of four television ads that highlight Henry’s support for gun rights and his leadership in signing the largest tax cut in state history.  <a href="http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=151275">Click Here & Scroll Down</a></blockquote>

He's got Democratic Street Cred.  When Tom Delay was in the midst of the Texas re-districting plan, Henry gave sanctuary to the Texas Democratic legislators who fled Texas to prevent Texas legislature from having a quorum.

He's said he doesn't intend to run for the Senate in 2008 or even 2010.  He's already <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/23/oklahoma-governor-brad-he_n_98156.html">Endorsed Obama</a> after Clinton won the OK Democratic primary.

Given that Oklahoma is tornado prone, he could talk about the importance of improving FEMA and re-emphasize the Katrina disaster.  He could also play the <i>Oklahomans don't need to be lectured about terrorism</i> card courtesy of Timothy McVeigh (although he wasn't Governor at the time of the bombings).  Since he was born in 1963, he's from the same political generation as Obama (i.e. post-60s).

Here is his <a href="http://www.governor.state.ok.us/issues.php">List of 2008 Legislative Initiatives</a>. Among them are Education, Job Creation, Health Care &  Government Accountability.  Sound Familiar?  For that matter,  Education always shows up on the list, and the First Lady of Oklahoma is a former school teacher.

He is pro-death penalty, but unlike Bush, he actually appears to reflect on whether the sentence should be commuted or pardoned.  He actually has <a href="http://www.eurunion.org/legislat/DeathPenalty/TorresVOklaGovMess.htm">commuted</a> one defendant's death sentence to life in prison.  Besides, as VP, he isn't going to be signing off any executions.

He probably can't bring his state with him, but it looks as if he can help Obama broaden his support with white, working class voters.

Just a thought.

With apologies to Shakespeare.

I'm sure we can all agree that the 2008 primaries have gone off without a hitch, and if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

With that in mind, here are some suggestions for improving the primaries next time around:

<ul>
<li>Abolish the super delegates - if the super delegates are going to follow the pledged delegate leader, what's the point; if they're not going to follow that, it leaves the aroma of a smoke filled room</li>
<li>the number of pledged delegates for each state will be 10x the number of Congressional Representatives that state has; that way the number of total delegates stays about the same as it is now, but they are distributed in a manner that reflects each state's population</li>
<li>the pledged delegates are allocated among the candidates according to the percentage of the vote each candidate received across the entire state; the winner of the state gets the benefit of rounding</li>
<li>abolish caucuses, with the possible exception of Iowa for sentimental reasons - I don't care if they're cheaper, they're less democratic</li>
</ul>

I'm undecided if the primaries should be opened or closed.

I'm also don't really have any proposed scheduling rules, other than I would tend to favor purple or blue states over red states.  Thus I would probably move South Carolina farther back in the primary schedule.  If the desire is to have an early state with a large African-American population, may I suggest Maryland instead?  According to the 2000 census figures, the percentage of African Americans in South Carolina and Maryland is 29.48% and 27.72% respectively.