Is Colorado the New Florida?
By Asma Hasan
Colorado, US
All politics is local, right? My home state of Colorado is facing the ultimate local-national conflict these days. As Obamania spreads throughout Denver days before the start of the Democratic National Convention (Obama has even displaced Denver Broncos' merchandise at the front of our airport shops), state Republican officials are preparing for a nail-biter come November.
Besides the fact that Colorado is likely a swing state, we also have fairly new and allegedly unreliable electronic voting machines — in our primary last week, Denver took an astonishing six hours to count a mere 10,000 votes! The Colorado Secretary of State will have to decipher, and hopefully not manipulate, all of this.
If the man currently holding the post, longtime politician and Republican Mike Coffman, stays in office despite winning his primary for a Congressional seat, he will be the one able to call off recounts and rule on counting procedure during the November election. If he does win his election (he's favored to) and leaves office for Congress in January 2009, Colorado's Democratic Governor Bill Ritter will then appoint someone to the position — most likely a Democrat, who will then oversee all Colorado elections until 2010.
The alternative would be for Coffman to resign now: A temporary secretary would then be appointed by Ritter (again, likely a Democrat, who would have all the same powers Coffman currently has) until the new secretary, voted in on the November 2008 ballot as well, takes office in January. Do Republicans sacrifice the chance at long-term, local election influence for short-term and potentially pivotal influence? It's a real dilemma — even Broncos legend John Elway couldn't Hail Mary out of this one.
What do you think? Considering how crucial Colorado could be to a McCain victory and the potential problems, should Coffman stay put? Or should he think of the longer-term good of the local party? And isn't it wrong that local political whims could alter the outcome of the presidential election?
Although both John Edwards and Russia used the Summer Olympics as a media cover to hide their nefarious deeds, our presidential candidates didn't miss a beat. Watching their reaction to the shocking Russian invasion of its sovereign neighbor Georgia, we voters got a sneak preview of how each candidate might behave in a foreign policy crisis while in office. Obama and McCain made similar condemnations of Russia's actions and called for immediate US humanitarian assistance. (McCain also provided a helpful, brief history of Georgia, apparently borrowed from Wikipedia (so he does know how to use the Internet).
From there, I detect some differences. While Obama emphasized restraint and a less harsh diplomatic plan, McCain came out swinging, sounding aggressive and accusing NATO of giving Russia a green light. Obama is taking a reasoned, lawyer-like approach, while McCain is taking, at least rhetorically, a no-holds-barred one.
In situations of foreign policy crisis, do we want a lawyer, thinking five steps ahead, or a man of action, who talks tough from the get-go and immediately reaches for a sword and not a shield? What about a combination approach, employing McCain's tough rhetoric tactics when a bully like Russia is involved but Obama's more sophisticated approach on smaller countries, like Pakistan?
To be honest, I am not sure. Which way do you think is better?
PS: One thing I am sure of is that the nominees for Glamour's Women of Your Year are amazing. Read their stories and vote for your choice here. And if you need more incentive to check out these women's stories of rising up over adversity, by voting you will be entered to win a fall getaway to Alberta, Canada worth almost $5000. Vote now!
Editor's Note: Reprinted from Glamour.com with permission of the author. Please read the original blog posting at: www.glamour.com/
news/blogs/glamocracy/asma/index.html
