This nation has seen the most tumultuous, contentious presidential primaries in a long time. At deadline, there were four candidates in serious contention for the Republican and Democratic nominations. The delegate count was too close to call.

The outcome may have a tremendous impact on American Indian policy. As tribes build their economies and strengthen their governments they find themselves politically vulnerable.

It is critical that tribal members get to the polls. Not just in the November elections. Their votes must be counted in the caucuses and primaries.

My mother used to tell me, “Vote for the man (or, in this historic time, woman) and not the party.” This advice has never been truer as tribal leaders and tribal members cast their ballot for a presidential and vice presidential candidate who, in all likelihood, will be leading a country that is becoming increasingly anti-Indian.

Not only will the president-elect set Indian policy, but he or she will be appointing judges, U.S. attorneys and possibly even Supreme Court justices whose interpretation of law and the Constitution could forever change the course of tribal history.

It is incumbent upon tribal citizens to be informed, educated voters who truly believe candidates worthy of their vote will keep their commitment to upholding sovereignty and working for the betterment of Indian Country.

Candidate Web sites provide a wealth of information.

The U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., Web site emphasizes his support and respect for government-to-government relationships. He promises to “provide greater federal resources to help tribes address shortfalls in health care, education, law enforcement and energy assistance. He said he supports regulated Indian gaming as a tribal resource and as a means to correct the longstanding mismanagement of Indian trust income by the Department of the Interior.”

Obama states that Washington’s ‘one size fits all’ solutions don’t work in Indian Country.”

“Tribal communities,” he said, “should be empowered to address their own problems.”

U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., states in her web site that she will appoint a liaison to Native American communities and sign an executive order to establish regular consultations with tribal governments. She said she believes in increasing the Indian Health Service budget as well as raising the operating budgets of programs which benefit tribes such as Head Start.

Promises. Does anyone remember the “Trail of Broken Treaties?”

Both senators have legislative records which support tribal policies and programs. Obama was an original co-sponsor of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act amendments and also supported government funding for urban Indian health programs and low-income home energy assistance programs. Clinton supported reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act and voted for legislation which would provide $10 million dollars to create educational institutions specifically designed for Native American communities.

This support for tribal policies and legislation is commendable. But sometimes it’s just as important to take into account not only what the candidate supports but who supports the candidate.

Unions have targeted employees of tribal casinos and other businesses to halt their rapidly dwindling membership. The National Labor Relations Board recently made an unprecedented determination that tribal casinos do not comprise an “essential governmental function” of the tribe, thus opening the door for forced unionization and eroding the basic tenets of tribal sovereignty.

Obama named Maria Elena Durazo a national co-chair of his campaign. Durazo is an outspoken opponent of tribal sovereignty and an official of Unite HERE, an anti-tribal sovereignty union. Obama is endorsed by the Service Employees International Union, the Nevada chapter of the Culinary Workers Union and the Transport Workers Union, which all have a vested interest in unionizing tribal casinos.

Clinton has been endorsed by 13 unions, including the United Auto Workers, which recently attempted to unionize the Saginaw Chippewa casino.

Republican Gov. Mike Huckabee doesn’t give much hope to potential tribal supporters. There is no mention of Native Americans on his site or any campaign statements. This is not surprising for a governor from Arkansas, which has no federally recognized Indian reservations.

U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., notes in his Web site that, since being elected to the U.S. House in 1982, he has worked with tribes on a government-to-government basis to improve health care, education and housing. He has worked on such tribal issues as environmental protection, water rights, economic development and gaming. He has supported trust responsibility, tribal justice systems and tribal self-determination and self-governance.

“No candidate for president in either party has sponsored more legislation or had more laws enacted to help improve conditions on the reservations and strengthen the ability of tribal governments to provide essential programs and services,” McCain’s Web site said.

No “commitments for the future.” No promises to be broken.

What we see is a track record of commitment to Indian Country; an established history of caring about the tribes.

We need not be victims of the “Trail of Broken Treaties,” if the candidate has a record of promises that were kept.