Tomorrow is “the big day” in regards to the Democratic primary race.  Hillary Clinton is currently forecasted to win the primary, but Barack Obama currently leads in both delegates and popular votes.  The general consensus is that Clinton needs to win by a sizable margin in the state in order to maintain her argument for why she remains in the race.  Losing the state would definitely put her out of contention, and a weak victory could turn any outstanding superdelegate away from her and onto Obama’s side. 

So, what do you think?  How well will Clinton do tomorrow?  My guess is that she’ll win by 7%, which is barely enough for her to retain her argument for being in the race.

Over the past few months, the low rumble of William Ayers has been growing louder, and Barack Obama is beginning to hear the roar. Doing his best to address the issue, Obama has said that he has a “friendly relationship” with Ayers, but “not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.” But why is on man becoming such an issue for Obama as of late? Let’s take a look back a few decades ago to find out.

In 1969, William Ayers and 10 other members (one being his future wife) broke away from the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) following the SDS convention and formed the Weathermen; an anti-war movement that embraced the idealism that violent action would have a better impact on the issue than non-violent protests. They also believed that their actions would usher in the Revolution in the United States that many nations around the world were experiencing, including China, France, Mexico, and more. Relying on “white privilege” (the balance to the Black Power movement) and world Communism, the group issued a “Declaration of a State of War” against the United States and began a serious of domestic terrorism attacks and protests throughout the country.

After a year of violence directed at the government and symbols of wealth, the group went underground following casualties resulting from their attacks. Being known as the Weather Underground, they continued attacks on government facilities, including the Pentagon, where they blew up a ladies bathroom. This won them the honor of being on the FBI’s top 10 Most Wanted list. But by the mid-1970s, the group eventually disbanded and the remaining members remained on the run from the authorities. In 1980, Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn turned themselves in to the authorities. Dohrn received three years of probation while Ayers had the charges dropped against him following misconduct by the prosecution. But what does all of this have to do with Obama?

In 1995, Obama was introduced to Ayers and Dohrn at their residence when State Senator Alice Palmer was preparing to run for Congress. Both Ayers and Dohrn were influential liberals in the district that Palmer represented and would support Obama in his run to succeed Palmer. In 1997, both Ayers and Obama participated in an academic panel at the University of Chicago entitled “Should a child ever be called a ‘super predator?’” In 1999, both Ayers and Obama were two of the nine sitting members of the Woods Fund for Chicago that focuses on the disadvantaged in the area. After three years together, the two parted until 2002 when they participated in another academic panel, this one entitled “Intellectuals: Who Needs Them?” And through all of their time together, it was only in 2001 that we have records of Ayers financially supporting Obama in one of his campaigns by donating $200.

So through all of this, what do we know about Obama in regards to Ayers? Other than living in the same area, working with each other for three years in a charity-based organization, and $200 in donations, not much. We haven’t heard Obama embrace Ayers terrorist or socialistic views of the past, so we can’t say that he is “anti-American” or a terrorist sympathizer. However, Obama doesn’t seem to understand the impression of his casual responses about his time with Ayers has on segments of the public, and this has been a trend with him. Obama shouldn’t be throwing all of his historical relationships “under the bus” whenever a controversy arises, but he needs to explain better how he views the actions of those around him and why he believes it is ok to associate with them today. Unfortunately for Obama, he hasn’t mastered that yet, and every month there seems to be a new questionable person in his life. As Larry C. Johnson said, “William Ayers, in the age of terrorism, will be Barack Obama’s Willie Horton” might not be too far fetched.

For some additional reading, check out these sites:
The Huffington Post – “Ayers And Obama: What Is Their Relationship?”
Right Wing Nut House – “Finally, the Media ‘Discovers’ Obama-Ayers Relationship”
CNN – “McCain: Obama’s patriotic, but his Ayers ties are ‘open to question’”
Boston Globe – “How Obama and the radical became news”
Townhall – “Airing the Ayers-Obama Connection”

For some additional reading across the web, check out these blogs:
Doug Ross – “Obama and Communism: Ayers, Dohrn and FARC”
Nicholas Stix, Uncensored – “Obama’s Terrorist Connection”
Obama Who? – “More Obama and Ayers Scandal Info”
Crooks and Liars – “McCain bashes Obama on Ayers but stands by his association with anti-Catholic pastor Hagee”
The Swamp – “Bill Ayers, a diary of ‘episodic notoriety’”

Did you know the Clinton’s reported $109 million in income over the past eight years? Or how about the Obama’s bringing in $4.2 million last year? How about John McCain’s $419,731 in 2007? Well, thanks to the modern practice of presidential candidates disclosing their tax returns in the election year, we now know that these individuals do make more money than we do. However, some people want to know yet even more.

Melanie Sloan of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington is upset that Cindy McCain’s tax records were not released as well. Due to a prenuptial agreement between the McCain’s, the two have filed their taxes separately for years. However, under Arizona tax law, John McCain does have to take into account some of his wife’s finances in preparing his tax return. For some reason, however, Sloan believes that failing to disclose Mrs. McCain’s tax information “slaps of hypocrisy” on the part of John McCain, who has called for more transparency in government over the years. But how is this hypocritical?

For starters, there is no requirement for a Presidential candidate to release their tax records when the run for office. It has been done in the past as a way to gain the trust of the public and hopefully some votes. Additionally, the spouses of the candidates are not running for office. They take part in the campaigns in order to help their spouse win, but their name does not show up on the ballot on election day. Lastly, if the FEC did require a submission of all tax returns, how far back would be required? Just one year? Four years? Ten?

Seriously, the arguments by Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton for delaying the release of her tax records or Melanie Sloan complaining that Cindy McCain’s tax records were not released are silly and petty. Somewhere people came up with the false notion that they must know every little detail about persons’ personal life. While it might be good to know if a conflict of interest exists between a candidate’s investments and a key portion of their platform, this can be disclosed with a simple filing with the FEC without the unnecessary process of disclosing personal financial information.

It is time people stop demanding things that are not required by the law. If you cannot trust someone who chooses to retain some sort of privacy while having the rest of their life dissected under a microscope by the media and their challengers in the hopes to represent you for four years as President, then that is your issue. And if you think this is one of the more important issues in a campaign, then your priorities need to be reexamined. It is probably time for this practice to end anyway. We have added too many unnecessary requirements to politics that it discourages those that are more qualified to serve and lead our nation from taking a stand, and the time for things to change begins now.

For some additional reading, check out these sites:
Financial Times – “McCain faces accusations of hypocrisy”
CREW – “John McCain Reported $405,409 in Income Last Year”
Bloomberg – “John McCain Reported $405,409 in Income Last Year”
Politico – “Cindy McCain earns more than John”
FOX News – “McCain Releases Tax Returns”

For some additional reading across the web, check out these blogs:
CQ Politics – “McCain Releases Tax Returns”
Media Matters – “Several media outlets advanced comparison between Cindy McCain’s and Teresa Heinz Kerry’s release on tax info, ignoring key distinction”
The Swamp – “McCain releases his taxes but not wife’s”
The Wall Street Journal – “McCan Releases Two Years of Tax Documents”
VOT3R – “Mrs. McCain’s Taxes”

I know immigration isn’t in the news today, so I thought it would be a good time to bring it up without any media influence. As we all know, the U.S. shares a 1,952-mile border with Mexico; much of it is “unsecured” in the sense that there isn’t a border wall dividing the two nations. Some individuals have called for a fence that stretches coast to coast, while others say no wall should exist at all. After months of debates, the House passed H.R. 4437 in December 22005 which calls for 698 additional miles of fence to be built on the border. In the Senate, the Secure Fence Act of 2006 was passed in October 2006 calling for only 370 miles to be constructed. In either case, half of the border would be left open for illegal aliens to cross into our country.

So, why didn’t Congress pass laws to build a complete fence? For starters, there is a lot of private land on the border that the U.S. would have to work out fair compensation to the landowners in order to build the fence. This will cost money. In other parts, there are environmental protected lands in the Rio Grande that could be negatively impacted if a fence is built. Trying to protect the environment and/or diverting the fence will cost more money. There are Native American nations that straddle the border between the two nations, resulting in dividing their land. Again, diverting the fence around their lands would cost more money, while potentially alienating legal residents of our own country by walling them off from the rest of the nation. These are just a few of the many complications facing the government if they were to attempt a coast-to-coast fence.

Is a 1,952-mile fence actually needed? Is a fence needed at all? According to the U.S. Border Patrol, over a million people attempt to cross the border in a year. Between October 2003 and April 2004 alone, the Border Patrol detained over 650,000 illegal aliens crossing into our country. With estimates of at least 13 million illegal aliens in our nation currently, one can only imagine how many more could be here if no wall existed at all. So some sort of fence is needed to stem the flow, but where should it be placed?

Fortunately, some portions of our border are either impassible due to terrain conditions or because of the desert (where many do die attempting to cross every year). These sections could be left without a physical fence, instead covered with video cameras or sensors to alert the Border Patrol if someone does cross. In other sections, such as the Native American nations, the tribes know who belongs and doesn’t belong on their land, and we can work with them to police their territory without the need of a wall. The Rio Grande protected area is tough to cross due to the river and natural vegetation. Sensors and cameras will be hard to install and monitor due to the conditions there, meaning that manned patrols would be required. Lastly, larger towns have enough local law enforcement to serve as a reasonable deterrent to potential illegal aliens, diverting them to other sections of the border.

While this still leaves over 1,000 miles of border to be protected either by a wall or with technology and patrols, it is a start that saves the nation money while providing reasonable protection. But what else should we do? A fence is just a Band-Aid. That is a discussion for next week. Until then, what is your opinion on the fence?

For some additional reading, check out these sites:
Border Fence Project – American Citizens Securing the Borders themselves…
Minuteman Border Fence – Border Security Can’t Wait for Congress to Act
The New York Times – “Power to Build Border Fence Is Above U.S. Law”
Rep. Duncan Hunter congressional web site – “Follow the Construction of Border Fencing”
Newsweek - “Parry and Thrust”

If you noticed some strange things on the site within the last hour … “SORRY.”  I’m trying to implement a tabbed feature in the body of the site, but not with much luck.  I will try again this weekend.