As an educator I stress the importance of critical analysis, which includes the capacity to assess the validity of past statements and/or actions in the light of new information. Critical analysis implies that with the insights provided by new information a person may well change her or his stance on an issue. In life, the workplace, and certainly in the educational process the ability to change stances on the basis of accumulated knowledge is a critical element for learning, and frequently is taken as an indicator that the person is becoming more mature, and possibly wiser.

Yet when running for office, changing a position on the basis of new knowledge is used to affix on the afflicted candidate the label, flip-flopper. Opposition researchers for various campaigns comb the voting records and public statements of their opponents to find instances of where a vote or an utterance made earlier is different than one made more currently. If such an instance is found, then a hue and cry is made, which the media covers, that the person has flipflopped and certainly is not deserving of election. The campaigns for both McCain and Obama have certainly made many such charges already, and many more are yet to come. So is a change in position merely flipflopping, a strategic choice to attract votes, or the product of enlightment. This is an important determination to be made by voters.

For those who may be interested the Republican Party for its national party convention has created an interactive web site at http://www.gopplatform2008.com for the public to discuss, submit, and review ideas for the Party's platform in 2008. You have to create a platform account, which is free and an easy process. After creating the account, you can review ideas in different topic areas that have been submitted already, discuss those ideas, and/or submit your own ideas. It is quite interesting to read submitted ideas or discussion threads provided by people across the nation.

Some campaign concerns that the Obama forces may want to address. One is the campaign theme of change. When it comes right down to it most Americans are much more willing to stay the course than to embrace broad, systematic change. Even in politics this partly explains the incredible success rate of incumbents running for re-election. So with that context will many voters go against their instincts and vote for the comprehensive change agenda that Obama is offering. A second concern is the heavy reliance on new voters, and specifically voters who are between 18 to 25 years old. Thus far in the history of president campaigns that age cohort, even though appealed to by several candidates, has not made a significant difference in the outcome of any election. For 2004 that age group turned out in increased numbers but ultimately did not turn the tide for the Democratic candidate. Another concern is with Obama being portrayed as an unstoppable force will he succumb to the same pitfall as Hillary, for the Democratic primary election, in assuming that the election is already won? Perhaps an indicator of this presumption is the movement of the acceptance speech from the Democratic convention site to an outdoor sports facility in order to host a crowd more than three times as large.

How does the Obama campaign, and the Democratic National Committee, pass the torch for the symbolic leadership of the party without bloodletting from Bill Clinton to Barack Obama? And if the torch is passed successfully then how does the Obama campaign use, if at all, Bill Clinton on the campaign trail? Part of the answers to these questions will be unveiled at the Democratic Convention. It will be quite interesting to see if Obama and Clinton will appear at the Convention on the same day. Also, will Clinton be given a prime-time speaking appearance, and, if so, what exactly will he say about Obama?

The Obama campaign is in a bit of a dilemma given Bill Clinton's occasional strident attacks on Obama during the primary season but also aware of his popularity among many of the party faithful. The dilemma becomes more complex with many political observers labeling Bill as perhaps the best presidential campaigner in modern day history but recent events reflecting that he has lost some of his luster. So how do you deal with a person who still has the ability to generate huge amounts of camapign contributions but has frequently made not very nice comments about you and your abilities? A quandary that the Obama campaign would rather not have to deal with but will have to confront to be successful in November.

The contest sponsored by Congressional Quarterly that allowed on-line voters to determine their choice for Obama's running mate is now over. In the final round of the contest it was retired General Wesley Clark against Senator Joe Biden. Senator Biden held a slight lead until the last day of voting which happened to coincide with the day that Clark made his comments about the qualifications of McCain for the presidency. After the comments, Clark had a surge in votes, took the lead, and won the contest. So according to the Congressional Quarterly contests Huckabee will be McCain's VP pick, and Clark will be Obama's.

During his Meet the Press interview, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger made a very astute point about the upcoming presidential election. He said that in choosing between McCain and Obama voters should determine which one would adopt more of a public servant than a party servant approach as president. For the immediate, and long term, future of the nation it will be critical for the president to be able to work with the opposing party on a number of critical issues confronting the nation. If the president, regardless of whether it is McCain or Obama, stays very tied to his party positions and will not budge from them even if they are not well devised or relevant to the addressed problems then that does not bode well for our or the country's future.

Right now the McCain and Obama campaigns are pursuing several objectives. Of course, a primary purpose is to continue to raise money to afford the massive expenditures that occur when the general election campaign starts in full force. For the Obama campaign the mini-furor stirred up by his refusal to opt out of accepting federal funds has already dissipated almost completely. What will be interesting is to see if his reliance on a large number of small donors will continue to be effective enough to finance a general election campaign. Or has the long, drawn out primary season turned off a sufficient number of Democrats to significantly impact on his fund raising capacity? Only time will tell.