On September 26, 1960, Americans sat down and watched the first-ever televised presidential debate – a debate since known for its importance in the coming months.  The young and vibrant Kennedy was tan and well rested, while Nixon was pale, poorly-dressed, visibly tired, and by many historians admission, the winner of the close debates. However, Kennedy won the election in 1960, due to how the technology of the time captured the image – the idea- of Kennedy.

Technology has always been a part of the election process, from photographs to the internet, and with the arrival of “Web 2.0,” the dynamic of American elections is changing faster than ever before.

Think about it this way:  Both Barack Obama and John McCain have Facebook pages.  Both are listed on LinkedIn. Both have campaign blogs, websites, videos posted, stories archived, RSS feeds pushing information at you.  Both campaigns have their myriad of minions shooting emails off every twenty minutes about the state of the campaign. Obama’s campaign is even sending out text messages to everyone who registers, letting them know first who he picks to be his running mate.

The news media, from newspapers, radio, TV, news websites, blogs, podcasts, etc. bring you more and more information every day about the two candidates, their parties, and the megadrama that is Election season.  Combine that with the host of political organizations, like MoveOn, Divided We Fail, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and others, and you’ll have a headache.

With the increasing number of media outlets, the rise of social media, the advent of Web 2.0, and the instant gratification that news organizations, political campaigns, advocacy groups and ticked-off citizens like myself have provided for the American public, it seems today that the facts get spun in so many different directions that getting a straight story from anywhere is seemingly impossible.

Have we become a nation so dependant on politi-drama that we need it to be broadcast to our radios, TV’s, newspapers, websites, blogs, forums, wikis, i-Phones, Blackberries, and every other Bluetooth-enabled, Wifi-Vista-Capable, Broadband-high speed- touch screen, beta-tested gizmo, all in the incredible clarity of 1080i?

What ever happened to forming your own opinion, after thinking about it for a while?

I’m not saying we need to go Neolithic, but here and there its nice to stop, think, and form an opinion based on the information you have at hand.  Do yourselves a favor today: read a couple of headlines, and then sit back in your favorite chair, or outside (the fresher the air, the better) and think about what was said.  You’ll have a better opinion than any that’s been pushed at you, because it came from someone who matters more than any pundit or politician: you.

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.