While I'd never thought of that (the state funding of party politics), it makes a great point. I'm not sure how I feel about it working, other than to agree that the party should be footing the bill. I also hate the arrogance of Iowa and New Hampshire always getting the first crack at the candidates. The pandering to those voters is an embarrassment to the process. While it's a dream, I'd love to imagine how our politics would look if we could only follow the Canadian model of campaigning for three to six weeks or so before the election.

My candidate of choice in this election was Joe Biden, but he felt that he was waiting too long to jump in. It's sad that more than a year before the general election was too late to get into the race.

As for Wilson, it'll be interesting and I hope they do mention this. I imagine the death of his wife, his inability to commit one way or another to involvement into World War I for the longest time, and the League of Nations (providing him with the Nobel Peace Prize, even though the US never joined) will be heavy topics on that podcast.

Well, if Hillary loses the "FBI Primary" I think Uncle Joe is waiting in the wings and ready to go! ;-) BTW, did we ever settle the great debate if Joe ever played for the Blue Hens in Peden? He said he did, but as I recall the data seemed to indicate that actually he didn't but was here as a non-player.

The FBI primary is a joke, just like the Cubs for the past 108 years.

A lot of truth there, 69.

This issue got a lot of press out here.

My wife and I were at Princeton recently for a wrestling match.
From listening to some of the students it was only an issue for a small,but vocal, group or groups.

Princeton seems to have taken the position that you have to take into account the mindset of people at that time,not today.
They also felt that, any of what are now considered negative views, were more then offset by the positive things he accomplished.

The set-the-record-straight-on-Wilson movement is not a flash in the pan kind of thing. It has been growing slowly for years, spurred mainly by African American academics, including many historians. The academy for years protected Wilson, because he was "one of their own." The bloom has come of that rose. IMHO, the man deserves to be treated as an historical figure in much the same way as we now view Richard Nixon -- a complex man, who did some good things, but who had a deeply flawed character.

Here's an interesting take by Ted Cruz, a Princeton alumnus, on the naming controversy: http://tinyurl.com/hwgp8o3 Personally, I would have gone a little farther than Cruz, but I understand the distinction he's trying to make.

To put Wilson in context, there were many presidents both before him and after him in his same general era who did NOT share his views on race. One sterling example, that most of you will probably find surprising, is Calvin Coolidge. As but one of many examples, see: http://tinyurl.com/j2qtgu3

I don't have a problem with anyone agreeing with 69. Or disagreeing. My contention is about fact vs opinion. Plenty of political opinions to go around.

"Strange worship of guns": That's opinion, not fact. The right wants to uphold the 2nd Amendment. That's not "strange worship" except in the opinion of the left. If nothing else, "strange worship" is provocative language, in the extreme.

"...state governments as a vehicle to use the bible to openly persecute people": Again, that's opinion, not fact. I'm not entirely sure what he's referring to here, but in any event, it's a clear view from the left and as such, belongs in the category of opinion.

"...actively attempts to limit voting rights": You'll have to enlighten me on the Wisconsin reference from Tuesday. I've not kept up with the story. But I assume this is about voter ID laws wherein there is a clear distinction of thought on the issue, right and left. And again, both camps harbor an opinion on the matter, not fact.

"...head-in-the-sand view of immigration": Yet again, a clear view from the left, and clearly an opinion. Believing we have an immigration problem is not "head-in-the-sand." Believing we should review our border policies is not "head-in-the-sand." Unless you live on the left. Then it is.

"...always chooses corporate profit over people and god's second greatest creation, Earth": And with that, we've finalized the view from the Peoples Republic of the Left. To believe any of these views is FACT is to misunderstand the difference between fact and opinion.

Guns: That's a simple question with a complex answer. In some ways, the answer is yes. It goes to freedom. It goes to original intent. Both of which are again matters of opinion. However, I will say that any politician who blows off the importance of this issue does so at his own political peril.

Religion: That's another tricky question. Again it goes to freedom. Who decides what is moral? At what level of society is that absolute rule written? If a central government forces its version of morality upon its citizens, it runs the risk of chaos. I saw a related question just today on this: should a Jewish vendor be forced to serve a Nazi? The way I see it, reasonable people can disagree on the specifics of this overall question, but the key is respecting the disagreements without resorting to labeling your opposition.

Voting: I'm not up to speed on the story you cite, but why did he not have an in-state driver's license? Was he an out-of-state student? If so, don't you see the potential for fraud? Are you saying Ohio allows out-of-state students to vote in Athens?

Nothing more fun than to watch a Family Values Christian conservative, have to apologize to his family for porking the baby sitter, or currently in Tennessee where the Attorney General has removed a legislator's office from the statehouse because he can't keep his hands to himself or his mouth shut

So, making a student show an instate ID is voter suppression these days? Tell that to the blacks in the Reconstruction South who dodged KKK bullets to vote. They'd laugh in your face!

And, if discrimination these days is telling people that they need to use the public restroom designated for their sex based on their genitalia and their DNA, then we have taken all meaning out of the phrase. I'm all for having compassion on people who have gender confusion, but the solution is not let men invade the women's restroom (or other way around, though that be the less frequent issue). Now, there are some rare conditions where folks are not XX (female) or XY (male) but XXY or XYY. These folks sometimes have ambiguous genitalia, but that's obviously not what the issue is here.

For a guy who is so astute on history, you seem to often lack empathy for the groups who have been historically suppressed. And yes, requirining a photo ID is a burden, because by law I do not have to have a Government issued ID as a citizen of the US. If I do not drive, why have an ID?