Democratic Presidential Nomination - Where the Campaign Trail Splits

The race for the Democratic nomination for the US presidency has been a hard-fought battle for all sides, and personal issues have supplanted policy and platform in these last few weeks. With accusations cast from either side- though more notably from the Obama camp- things have drifted away from the real task for the Democrat party: Select the best candidate and then turn the guns on a unified Republican party. The presumptive Republican Party nominee for the presidential general election, John McCain, has already set to work tackling the job of undermining and tearing down his opponent in the general election, slinging words already over policy and rhetoric with the junior senator from Illinois, Mr. Obama. Of course, what the senior senator from Arizona may not realize is that the nomination for the Democratic ticket is not necessarily in the bag for Mr. Obama.

Hillary Clinton has been holding fairly steady in recent opinion polls, with strong showings against Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama. In several of these polls, she has been the favored candidate if the general election were held on the day that the polls were conducted. It would seem that the issues, both personal and political in nature, have both been turning in the New York senator's favor. And while she has engaged in a few exchanges and moments of personal commentary, either in the act of targeting her opponents for questionable positions deflecting barbs, she has begun to do what has proven to be her strength in the past.

She is going to work on the issues. And this is something that has been her hallmark since her days spent as this country's First Lady.

At some point in any major primary election run, the candidates must move from a posturing stance to one that is more active. They must cease with the frantic handshaking and the sprinting from one town to the next. They must focus on the issues and promote strong, but realistic policies.

Mr. McCain has provided some insight to his position on the issues, but they seem to be a mere extension of President George W. Bush's policies; this may prove to be his undoing, but his current lack of information on his plans of action may be more destructive to his campaign in the long run.

Mr. Obama has recognized the need to start speaking on the issues more definitively than he has in the past; his talk of change with no real discussion of how to effect that change has grown thin with many voters. In a last dash through the next states to hold their primary elections, he has begun to disclose what he has in store for the economy, the major issue on the majority of the voting public. The plans have some merit, but, by his own words, he does not know when actual change will be felt.

And then there is Senator Clinton. In Raleigh, North Carolina, on March 27, she unveiled the ideas and policies that she advocates as corrective measures for many of the ills felt by taxpayers today. Tax reform, repealing impractical and unfair corporate protections, and infusing economic life into beleaguered communities make up the constituent parts of her plan. The strength of the plans she wields is yet to be determined, but that very fact that she has presented something more than the abstract reveals a new strategy for Clinton.

She is assuming the role of the office to which she aspires. In a clear, clarified manner, she is beginning to roll out policy that is steeped in experience and Congressional involvement. Something that her opponent, Mr. Obama, is lacking in.

A quick look at attendance and voting records indicates that Mrs. Clinton holds more than a seventy-eight percent positive record in attending and rendering a vote on important matters before the Senate. Her counterpart does hold a similar record, but given the fact that he is four years her junior in Senate, it would seem that Mr. Obama holds other, unnamed things as more important than voting on issues, bills, and reforms in our Nation's Congress. Further, her involvement, as the First Lady, in national matters of health care and trade reform also give her substantial weight over Mr. Obama, who, until his election to the Senate in 2004, had been relegated to the Illinois State legislature. Of course, his attendance record can be called into question on the state level, as he spent a considerable amount of time out of chambers pursuing a failed run at the U.S. House of representatives. Oddly, his recent attendance in Senate chambers mirrors his days spent or not spent in chambers of the Springfield, Illinois, Capital building. And beyond a few stutters in introducing bills of questionable necessity, he has been remarkably absent from the forefront of Congressional sessions. This record serves to bring up the question as to why such an inexperienced, absentee candidate is running for the most powerful elected position in the world.

When voters in the remaining primary elections, and perhaps the general election, step into the booth to cast their ballot, the simple issues before them should have already been spelled out by the candidates. The question is this: Will the candidate with the strongest grip on a definitive plan of action seize the victory, or will rhetoric and charisma win the day?