Frankly, I think having too many articles about the price of gas (or the price of eggs, or any prices for that matter) constitutes nothing to the issue at hand, and the end result is nothing short of a website that sounds like a whining seven-year-old girl with a skinned knee.  That being said, this is not an article about gas prices. This is an article about the American spirit.

In a fabulously mediocre article in The New Republic, Jonathon Lear “humorously” explains the rationale behind Sen. Hillary Clinton’s gas tax holiday.  Basically, as he explains it, the concept of “us and them” used in her argument for a gas-tax holiday has only a few likely rationales behind it: Clinton is serious (and therefore, seriously crazy), she is not serious (and therefore, is attempting to legislate through fear), or she is simply living in a dream world (in which case, do you really want her to be your next president?).

For those of you who have not heard of this gas tax holiday: the basic idea from proponents of the plan, like Clinton, is that our country should not collect taxes on petrol-chemicals for a certain period of time, in order to stave off some the current financial strain people are facing due to rising gas prices.  Opposition to this plan points out that gas taxes help to pay for the upkeep of the American infrastructure.  Since we have enough trouble with bridges collapsing across the country, it may be in our best interest to shell out an extra couple of bucks to keep our roads, bridges, tunnels, etc. safe.  There’s no sense in saving on gas if road conditions prohibit you from getting where you need to go in the first place.

But back to how this is not a post about gas prices: the true issue behind the idea of a gas tax holiday is the same issue that is behind the Federal Relief Fund that will be sending checks out to taxpaying Americans in the coming days and weeks.  Reports show that mass transit rider-ship is on the rise, and food banks across the country are receiving more and more requests.  Polls show that most people will either save the money from their relief checks, or use the money to pay off credit card bills. Our economy is suffering because of rising fuel costs, the exportation of jobs to foreign factories, continued military spending for the war in Iraq, etc…. but more importantly, it is American morale that is playing a major part in our economic troubles.

People are scared, and they are right to be.

That is why Clinton’s “us and them” rhetoric is so dangerous. Her attempt to appeal to scared citizens through the use of divisive, fear-mongering language is like something out of a bad, Cold-War inspired propaganda movie, where OPEC looks “red” while making a ton of green. What we need instead in this country is a hero, of sorts; no, not Barack Obama or John McCain.  The hero we need is not a person, but rather the great, unifying American spirit that has been shown to overcome all odds, from secession to depression, communism to terrorism, and just about every challenge we have faced in between. All we need is the strength to come together, and the clarity of vision to recognize that it needs to happen soon.

Maybe.

Clinton mentioned, in an interview with WMJI Radio, that she will be continuing in her fight for the nomination. With primaries in Idaho, Puerto Rico, New Mexico, Montana South Dakota, and (since they cannot seem to understand the party rules) Florida and Michigan in the coming weeks, Clinton is down in delegates, superdelegates, funds raised, campaign advertising funds spent, and states won. She needs a miracle to win the nomination. So why would any opinion writer think that, against all odds, Hillary Clinton’s continued action in this race is a good thing?

Clinton, at this point in the game, cannot win the nomination by pledged delegates alone. Her chances of winning the majority of superdelegates that she needs are slim. We could speculate a myriad of reasons why Clinton is still in this race, despite the odds, but one singular truth exists: Clinton could actually help Obama by staying in.

Now, listen up all you “Obama-ians”…I agree that Clinton’s continuation in this race could be seen as divisive. Sure, it could split the party in two, and make the Democratic Party look weak at a time when it needs strength. However, consider this: John Kerry won the Democratic nomination early in the race in 2004 (in March), which led to months of open season on Kerry’s ability to lead the country. This year, John McCain effectively won the nomination on Feb. 29. Where are the swift-boat tactics now, yelling in the streets about John McCain being too old, or four more years of Bush-Cheney style government, or anything that has to do with the Maverick?

Clinton can work to resolve the division in the party by mounting a full-scale attack on McCain. Let’s be honest, Clinton fans; we know she is good at political attacks, and its fairly certain that she is not going to win anyway. Unite the party by pointing out weaknesses in the Republican machine! Clinton’s rhetoric has changed in the past weeks, from one of “We’ll keep fighting, and damn the odds,” to “Let’s make this a Democratic year.” Clearly, she sees (or at least her speechwriters see) the end of the line coming.

On the flip side, while her attacks on Obama certainly aren’t helping with voters who take any politician’s statements at face value (a tragedy in this country), she is certainly bringing up issues that Republican strategists have been reviewing for months. She is pointing out weaknesses that Obama will have to work out if he wants to become the next president. Therefore, Hillary attacking Obama (yes, divisive, I know….) actually shows Obama the holes in his arguments, and he can keep filling them with “Hope” and “Change.”

Hillary has already had her time in the White House – even bought the coordinating official White House “I’m with Stupid” T-Shirt set. The best she can do now is help her party pull down a win…right after she recognizes that she will be making a valedictory, not victory, speech.

It all started on January 28, when Sen. Edward Kennedy and his son Patrick both made public endorsements for Obama. Since then, Robert Kennedy Jr., and his sister Kathleen Kennedy Townsend have both endorsed Mrs. Clinton. Even Maria Shriver, a Kennedy, has come out to express her support for Obama, while her husband Arnold Schwarzenegger is publicly supporting Sen. John McCain.

However, the most startling of all connections between the candidates and the Kennedy’s has nothing to do with the Kennedy’s who are currently alive. Connections and comparisons are being made right now between the Kennedy’s of the 1950′s and 60′s and the current Democratic candidates. While there is no perfect political analogy, the similarities exist and are striking.

As anyone who follows politics can tell you, there is no shortage of media outlets and political pundits claiming that Obama is a reincarnated, African-American version of John F. Kennedy, and the connection is not far off. Obama has very high poll numbers with young voters, as did Kennedy. Likewise, Obama claims to be an agent of change, as President Kennedy was, and has similar stands on poverty, healthcare, and education. Abroad, however, is a strange coincidence, since it was Kennedy’s administration that aided the Baath Party in gaining power in Iraq, and Obama’s goals is to end that reign of power. Likewise, both Kennedy and Obama stood for a reduction in troop activity in their respective wars.

Clinton, on the other hand, is following the same path as Robert F. (Bobby) Kennedy. Bobby Kennedy was born into a political machine, while Clinton married Bill to start her own. Both moved to New York and established residency after a year. Both went on to win a Senate seat while being an outsider. Both were loved by New Yorkers as Senators, and both started their campaigns for President and watched their popularity drop. Both were called “ruthless and unprincipled,” and were known for their intensity and vigor. Clinton also claims to be an agent of change, as Bobby Kennedy did, and both stood for minority rights and interests. It should come as no surprise that United Farm Workers has endorsed Clinton, when their founder Cesar Chavez was a proud supporter of Kennedy.

The scariest part of these analogies has yet to be seen. Both of the Kennedy brothers were brought down at the height of their popularity, and are ingrained into the American memory as martyrs of the American democratic dream. Both men died while serving our nation, in their respective fashions.

It is very bad karma, in a manner of speaking, to show this startling similarity between the Kennedy’s and the candidates, but history does have a way of repeating itself. Are we to expect that either candidate will be brought down by the actions of others? Are these two candidates, who are making history just as the Kennedy’s did, going to wither away into the American memory as an “almost” icon?

We can only hope that they shake loose the bonds of history, but with the number of Kennedy connections increasing with every endorsement and the battle between both candidates, and the Kennedy family, bad luck seems to be the only kind of luck fate wishes to bestow on the Democratic Party.