Playing in the mud

So it's mud slinging time, are you excited? Good thing the Presidential election is a year and a half away. The Democrats have a handful of candidates already, the most notable ones being Hillary "Don't Call Me Bill's Wife" Clinton and Barack Obamination.

Neither has a terribly long political career, unless you count 8 years of being First Lady. They are both members of "minority groups" and are waving those flags high. Recently, their race has been all about pointing out flaws in each other. Did you people not learn from the follies of the last election? The more bad things you say about your opponent, the more patching up you have to do after the election (or before it, if you choose the person you've been bashing for months as your running mate).

The Republicans have been noticeably quieter, at least on who their presidential candidates are. This could be due to the fact that they are sorting out who in the current administration is to blame for the corruption and mismanagement of the Iraq debacle. "Hey let's make a list of people who would suck as presidential candidates and blame them for Iraq!"

I know I'm being a bit vague here and I apologize, I will get to the point. This political party system is garbage, the whole election process is flawed for that matter. We need a system where each candidate is their own person, and they can travel the country explaining their views and why one should vote for them. From there we have an election, but what's with this electoral college crap? I know that people in this country can be kinda stupid sometimes (one of these days I'll post my thoughts on stupid people, expect it to be a LONG one), but we certainly don't need another level of bureaucracy in this process.

Here's an idea:
The Internets are pretty amazing these days. Anyone who has the capability to vote certainly should be able to watch a series of campaign speeches and debates either online or on television. Let's bring the issues out in the open and worry less about leaks into the press about people's past or how something that a candidate said can be misinterpreted as slanderous or insulting to a particular group.

Now of course there will be problems, but wouldn't it be better to hear about candidates' stance on the issues instead of all the mudslinging? Sure the press has a right to dig, but that's a whole different blog. Remember Dragnet? "Just the facts, ma'am." Let's make elections that way.