December 12, 2007
As a liberal and, yes, a Democrat, the upcoming elections seem remarkably grim, a subject I touched on in another article.
As often occurs in politics, there is no easy solution. I think it’s safe to say the next president will not be another Republican: Americans disapprove far too much of the current administration and the problems it has created. So, who of the Democratic candidates has what it takes to rebuild a nation?
At the forefront of the Democratic race is New York Sen. Hillary Clinton. If elected, Clinton would be the first woman president. As I wrote in an earlier article of The Liberati, America is ready for a woman — I’m just not sure we’re ready for Clinton. As the wife of former President Bill Clinton, there’s a lot of baggage that comes with the name — some good and some bad.
A lot of people (especially due to the Bush administration) look back fondly at Bill’s presidency, which definitely helps Hillary. The friends she has made through her husband and through the Senate will come in handy if she wins, and as she’s put it, she’s ready to begin on day one.
However, her strong party loyalty is discomforting, and the name Hillary Clinton has an incredibly polarizing effect. In order to win, one needs to win not just his or her party’s vote, but also a large portion of the Independent vote and some of the opposition’s. As much hype as Clinton may get, and as much money and as many friends in high places as she has, I don’t think she can do that.
Probably one of the only candidates who can, Barack Obama is also the most unlikely considering American history. As a “black kid whose middle name is ‘Hussein’ and whose last name rhymes with Osama” (his words, not mine), Obama is the candidate for people who want to fall in love (a trait most commonly found among Democrats).
With his wide smile, Obama spews more inspirational rhetoric than his friend Oprah, preaching about “bridging the party divide” and instigating sweeping changes.
One thing Obama lacks is the substance to back it up. As the junior senator of Illinois, the 46-year-old hardly has the experience to serve as the nation’s leader, and Americans aren’t looking for another crash-and-burn presidency.
Former vice-presidential candidate John Edwards certainly has experience in crash-and-burn campaigns. Edwards always seems to be in third place behind Clinton and Obama, though he’s not been entirely eclipsed by their celebrity yet. As the only “big-name” candidate for the Democrats who is not a minority, Edwards is a very safe, very reliable, not very inspirational man. His decision to continue campaigning despite his wife’s terminal cancer has stained his name for many (especially women) who tend to vote based on family and personality.
It’s important to note that I did not analyze these candidates for their political views in most cases, but instead for their personas, mostly because there are very few differences between them. Almost all stick to conventional liberal positions on the issues: They all oppose the Iraq war, they are all pro-choice, all of them will try to help the environment, they all defend same-sex unions and none of them is particularly opposed to immigration.
Oh, and one more thing, they’re all Democrats — they’re going to raise taxes.
I have not yet made up my mind, and I would advocate the same for any person who wishes to be objective. I say this mainly because I don’t believe the candidates have revealed enough to know exactly what they’re all about. This is not the fault of the politicians, however, but the fault of politics.
A candidate like Clinton has to be evasive about her programs so her opponents have less with which to attack her. And Obama’s rhetoric is so inspirational and so meaningless that I have no idea what he plans to do (I’m not entirely sure he does, either).
But despite my pessimism in the Democratic pool, the Republicans are even more disappointing. Supporters of Rudy Giuliani need to realize there is a huge difference between running a city and running a country — no matter how great the city is — and that 9/11 is not the only reason to vote for a candidate.
In order to win, he also needs to appeal to his party’s base, and no evangelical is going to vote for a pro-choice supporter of same-sex marriage.
And while former Gov. Mitt Romney may look like the perfect politician, his inability to maintain a position for more than a year is, quite frankly, frightening.
Sen. John McCain, besides the fact that he’s much too old, lacks momentum, as he’s lost the support of more liberal conservatives and Independents to Giuliani and that of the very conservative to Huckabee and Romney.
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, however, is the most conservative and most alarming candidate of all. His views on issues such as abortion, immigration, and same-sex marriage, if instituted, would set the nation back 50 years socially.
So now that I’ve disclosed why none of the candidates will do, it’s up to you to decide which one to support.
Good luck, and don’t forget this is one of the most important decisions you’ll ever make.
But really, no pressure.
