Would an Independent President Mend the Partisan Divide? Scott Hinkley

I was one of Obama's many supporters who felt particularly frustrated with the bipartisan collapse of our representative democracy. Hearing him express similar frustrations during his campaign brought my desires for a more cohesive federal government back to the forefront of my mind. And it would seem that I am not the only one, since a lack of bipartisan cooperation has been a key criticism of Obama's current administration. I think that while his intentions to act above the limits of his party fell prey to the seduction of an overall congressional majority. I would have much rather seen Obama distance himself from the special-interest liberals as much as he has tried to distance himself from conservatives. But I still do believe that Obama is not just another mucky-much, blue or red, and that he does long for better representation independent of finances and influence. Just recall his critique of the supreme court's ruling on campaign finances in his last State of the Union to see his frustration with business as usual in Washington.

I can't say that it will be successful, but I think that the only step Obama can take to convince the American people that he wants to end the bipartisan conflict, he needs to leave his party and become an independent. I think it is difficult to see his efforts as genuine when he is so closely tied with only one of the two political parties. I am a liberal, and a democrat, but even I can see that we would be better off with a president who represented all Americans, not just red or blue ones.

Email Scott