08

I read an article today about the "Big 3" Democrat's signing a pledge to avoid the states that have been attempting to move the primaries up. My first reaction to the article in NY Times was... what good will that do? I understand that it is a symbolic measure, but to cease campaigning is comparable to shooting oneself in the foot. It will only hinder their ability to accomplish their goals. After a bit more consideration, I moved on to the question of ... How can this really be? Luckily, the article clarified my question exactly. Apparently, the candidates are allowed to hold fund raising events, and they already have events on the schedule. To me, this article may be just plain pointless. I'll have to wait and see if they actually keep to their promise, because if they don't, again, that is a shot in the foot. FOX News, sometimes known to have a Republican bias, reports that it is "hard to believe" that Hilary will stop campaigning in FL, because it is one of the states that she is the strongest in. I also find it interesting that the candidates did not take the lead on this issue - they followed Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, and Chris Dodd (according to MSNBC). In a related issue, Hilary just had to give campaign money to charity due to a controversy surrounding the donor. Democrats need to be careful at this time -Senator Craig's issue is attracting negative attention to the Republican party, so Democrats should stay quiet and wait this out. They shouldn't sign measures that are semantic or aren't well thought out. Also, Barack Obama's website has a track of the states that he is campaigning in, with photographs and a blog. However, the only states included at this time are New Hampshire, Iowa, Nevada and South Carolina. http://nevada.barackobama.com/page/content/nvhome (Nevada, for example). I think that this is an excellent campaign strategy, but he should include as many states as possible for it to be extremely effective. Getting elected President will not happen if he chooses to ignore some areas.