ith one of the most important elections looming ahead of us, we citizens are charged with the task of deciding which candidate will run the executive branch in the most effective, responsible way. While the democratic and republican parties have different ideas on how to run the nation, their candidates are hard to differentiate. The democratic presidential race has been narrowed to basically three senators. They all certainly look different, yet sizing up their specific plans and policies there doesn’t seem to be much of a contrast. Each contestant chants change and a new future, each one says we need a new direction. Sounds good to me, but why should I vote for Hilary Clinton and not John Edwards or Barack Obama? What the hell is the difference?
As I sat through the excruciatingly boring policy lectures, then listened to the pundits mull over the same thing said practically the same way by most of the candidates I found myself searching for a beacon of difference between them, besides of course their color and gender. At the democratic debate on January 15 in Las Vegas, the candidates did little to differentiate themselves from one another, but instead decided to take the opportunity to demonstrate how much they are alike. Clinton led the love fest, “We’re all family in the democratic party.” Okay, I get it, they’re so alike that they’re different. Wait, they’re so different that they are alike…
We’re getting off topic here. The problem is that there is no difference between the democratic candidates. Sure they have different ways to implement their specific policy positions, but what they want to do is pretty much the same.
We are then left to decide who we want to be the democratic candidate based on an entirely separate rubric than policy decisions and moral positions. It seems to me that the choice must be made by analyzing a different aspect of this race. Who is running the better campaign, and how does it affect the way the country views the candidates?
John Edwards has continuously run a desperate campaign against both Obama and Clinton, and often times cites any number of shortcomings and mistakes his rivals have made during campaign speeches and debates. Obama has used this campaign trick as well, but he’s centered his campaign on a clearly more positive message, and it is resonating with citizens. Hilary Clinton has also has spent a vast majority of her time in speeches and during the debate debunking the qualifications of both Obama and Edwards. She has also utilized her husband’s celebrity status to invoke negative attention towards her rivals.
An exacerbated Bill Clinton practically called Obama’s senate voting record a joke after Obama won the (91 percent white) state of Iowa by nine percentage points. Yet Obama seemed to stick to his guns about running an anti-smear campaign after his loss in New Hampshire. The January 14 issue of Newsweek explains that the only particularly nasty comment that came out of the Obama camp was done without his permission. Regarding a memo released by an Obama staffer, “It suggested Bill Clinton had profited from companies that outsourced jobs to India, while Hilary raked in donations from Indian-Americans,” writes Newsweek. He was furious with his staff, “It was the most angry I’ve been in this campaign.”
Clinton has changed her campaign tactics by limiting the number of negative ads and focusing more intensely on her personal message, and people are responding. According to a January 12 poll done by Gallup.com, Hilary’s favorability rating is at 50 percent, while Obama’s positive message has gained him 58 percent. Campaign tactics and attitude probably have something to do with that.
It strikes me as crudely ironic that amidst such a historic competition between a young viable black candidate and a keenly intelligent, viable female candidate, what the hell is a white guy supposed to do? Americans want a candidate that they can have a beer with, not who has the most impressive voting record. Edwards’ southern drawl and comb-over is a classic presidential combination. He almost possesses the beer sharing quality too, but not quite.
Obama touts himself as the great change bringer, Edwards is on a personal crusade against “corporate America,” and Hilary drives the experience nail right through your forehead. Perhaps some sick concoction should be created, something like a Frankenstein of the Democratic Party to meld all three into one hideous political superpower.
It’s becoming more and more evident as the race heats up that people know these candidates want to change the current status of Washington politics, however they remain…the same. This is the election of change, and maybe that’s why a female and a black man are leading the race, because they look different. The notion that we should be picking our candidates based on their campaigns is a huge error, but something that Americans seem to obsess over.
There is no doubt that this is perhaps one of the most important election years in recent history. With the largest federal deficit ever amassed, Pakistan on the verge of implosion, and the war in Iraq going into its fifth year, the need for a historically great president to pull the country together is at hand. Will it be Obama’s charm and hopeful message that carries him to the executive throne, or perhaps McCain’s jowly smile and war hero status will sweep him into the White House. I guess the only candidate I’d have a beer with is Mike Huckabee, but only if he brought Chuck Norris, and I could watch Norris actually roundhouse kick somebody’s head clean off their shoulders.
