Is it just me or has the 2008 Presidential primary been dragging on far too long? Perhaps it’s because I live in a state that voted ages ago or because the Democratic primary has two candidates that are closer than has ever been seen. Whatever the reason, I am looking forward to the end in June, when we can get on with life. Even though it may sound as if I’m fed up with the political process, I have in fact learned a great deal in the past few months. One main tidbit I’ve come to realize is that money plays a far greater role than it should in the presidential primary process. In fact, I have come to believe that the one who spends the most, rather than the better candidate, wins.

I saw this displayed between the Republican primary candidates. We had John McCain, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. Now, I know which of these 3 men is the better candidate. I know which one holds true Republican values (pro-life, pro-family, pro-traditional marriage). I also know that this candidate didn’t raise and therefore wasn’t able to spend as much as the other two. Thus, he didn’t win the primary. It also didn’t help that when the Republican candidates were mentioned on popular television news programs, he tended to be left out. Thus, he did not get the recognition he deserved. Why did this happen? Why was he pushed aside? I believe it’s because he lacked the funds to plaster his name on every corner, on every television screen, and to ultimately compete with the big money makers. So, even though Mike Huckabee raised $15 million dollars, it just wasn’t enough. Even though he is the best Republican candidate this year, he was not given the opportunity to fully compete. It’s quite unfortunate because many Republican voters are now left with a candidate that they’re unsure of. I’ve read articles about Republicans who are contemplating crossing party lines in November because they don’t feel McCain is the best choice. Yet, he raised the most. (I do realize that Mitt Romney technically had more money to spend, but 40% of it was self-financed, so he didn’t really “raise” it all.)

I feel the same outcome will be seen in the Democratic primary, even though Barack Obama is also the better candidate. Obama’s supporters have served him well. He has raised close to $194 million versus Clinton’s $169 million ($5 million of which was self-financed). Money means power in politics. So, should there be a cap? I think so.

I think the top candidates should compete on an equal playing field in order for the voters to find out where the candidates stand on issues rather than which ones can distract their attention with the most fliers and commercial time. Forget signs, bumper stickers and buttons. Am I voting for a name or a cool design? NO! I’m voting for someone to run the country in which I live. I cannot know who that should be from a flashy sign. I need details. I need information about what they believe. I need to know if they can stay cool under pressure and make the right decisions when our safety or economy is at stake. Unfortunately, many people vote based upon cool signs, who their parents or friends vote for, or who is the best looking. Our society is ruled by who is the most popular, who can grab our attention and who can make the cover of People Magazine. In fact, if George Clooney were running for President, he’d probably win.

I’m not sure how we can go about changing the rules, but I hope someone in politics will figure it out. I also hope they will push to have all the states vote on the same day, like we do for the actual election, and end this 5-month primary process. I feel for those states who have yet to vote because their Republican votes don’t really count anymore. It’s already been decided. We all should have an equal say and the current process does not allow for it. So, get out there, become educated about the candidates and issues, and vote based upon the facts instead of what the media tells you.