Journalists, political analysts, the media, and presidential candidates alike all promised the American people, last March, that the deciding state in the competitive Democratic candidate race would come down to Pennsylvania. We (the American people) believed it. On this extensive, six-week road to “victory,” candidates coped with everything from religious controversies, to sniper fantasies, to “bitter” arguments, to negative television ads, to inevitable endorsements (unfortunately Barack Obama got stuck with Michael Moore’s endorsement). What laid ahead of us at the end of this prized road to victory? Absolutely nothing.
Both candidates are still running. The race is still close. Hillary Clinton certainly benefited with a few extra points, but most agree that Obama will still emerge victorious. Nothing has changed, yet millions of Pennsylvanians left the confines of their homes to scuttle out and vote on April 22nd. What happened? What factors influenced Democratic voters through this elongated primary season? The issues? The policies? The promises? It certainly doesn’t seem so. At an Obama rally at the Peterson Events Center in Pittsburgh, Obama himself even admitted, “Senator Clinton and I really aren’t that different. We have many of the same ideas for this country.” When examining their policies, this appears true.
So if both candidates are so similar, how can one explain that, according to both CNN and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, over 60% of Hillary supporters would be angry if Obama got the nomination; 27% of them would vote for McCain instead; while 17% would refused to vote all together. Almost half of Obama’s supporters express similar statements about Senator Clinton, and 17% outright refuse to vote for her if she wins the primary (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/22/pennsylvania-exit-polls-p_n_98069.html). Granted, by the time October and November roll around, numerous Democrats will no longer be sore losers, and many will change there minds (as long as they aren’t the ones who still flaunt their 2004 Kerry/Edwards bumper stickers…REALLY sore losers), but it’s still interesting that both candidates’ views are so similar, yet their supporters tend to hate the opposing Democratic contender. Are voters examining the candidates’ ideas, or are they merely judging them by their physical features: race, gender, looks, etc? I go with the latter.
We live in an age where looks mean everything. Even with a contest like ‘American Idol,’ people tend to vote for whoever looks the best or has the most endearing personality…rather than a vote for the most talented (with the exception of Kelly Clarkson, who has proven that she possesses all of these qualities). The same can be said with the presidential campaign. Think about it: Hillary Clinton is sixty years old. She can get a senior discount on the Denny’s menu for peat’s sake! Everyone would agree that she looks really great for her age, but imagine if she had gray hair, wrinkles, and donned more conservative apparel—would she garner as many votes? Even if she wore a dress instead of a female business casual outfit everyday would she receive as many votes? Probably not, because she’d look
too feminine, and throughout history, the presidential role has always been a male role—especially today, when it seems that most Americans want someone who’s tough.Though it seems she did forget to take her old lady meds in this photo.
Now the media and everyday people continue to note that it’s so great and “unprecedented” that we have a white woman and a black man running for president. My argument is simply this: who cares!?!
If anything, we should be ashamed that it’s taken us this long to have a woman and a black man so close to being sworn in to office. A woman leading the country is an incredibly new idea—right? Well, Margaret Thatcher became the United Kingdom’s Prime Minister in 1979. Yes, 1979-almost thirty years ago. Canada also had a female Prime Minister…in 1993. Iceland was ruled by its female president, Vigdis Finnbogadottir, for sixteen years. Han Myung Sook was South Korea’s Prime Minister two years ago. New Zealand possessed a female prime minister for almost ten years. Benazir Bhutto was prime minister of Pakistan from 1988-1990 and 1993-1996. Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese both served as president of Ireland throughout the 1990s. Tarja Kaarina Halonen became Finland’s president in 2000. Golda Meir was the prime minister of Israel in the late 1960s (interestingly enough she was originally from Milwaukee), and India has a current female leader in President Pratibha Patil. I shouldn’t even mention the hundreds of years of queens, empresses, and monarchies throughout England, Italy, Denmark, Netherlands, Egypt, Spain, Japan, Sri Lanka, Russia, Scotland, Brazil, Sweden, Cambodia, and many others. What’s the point? The point is that our country thrives itself on being a
world leader, yet when it comes to race, gender, sexuality, and females leading the country, we’re far behind the rest of the world (with the exception of Saudi Arabia). Should we celebrate the possibility of a female president? No, we should be embarrassed that there hasn’t been one yet.-
Even the Enterprise had a female captain!
Now Mr. Obama, he’s obviously a black man. If it were 1955 and he was running for President, THEN I’d probably make a big deal about it and celebrate the fact that a black man can run for president---not in 2008 though. They say we’ve come a long way, but it doesn’t quite seem so if we’re making a big deal about race (maybe THIS is what his Pastor was talking about (when he wasn't talking crazy)). Twenty percent of Pennsylvania voters determined race as an important factor in their vote (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/22/exit-polls-race-gender-play-role/). Even though I can clearly understand why many black voters would feel pride in voting for the black man, and they should, but there’s more to the picture than that. Can most of these voters describe his policies? His beliefs? What about Hillary Clinton’s policies and beliefs, because remember, one SHOULD examine both sides before making an informed decision. Do most of these voters know what Hillary Clinton’s healthcare plan is? How about Senator Obama’s? In case you don’t know, both plans are nearly identical—even Clinton admitted that, "ninety-five percent of our health care plan is similar."
Both candidates want to reform immigration similarly. Both have plans of spending over $150 billion dollars towards energy through the next ten years. Both have parallel ideas with the current housing problem, along with education, retirement, foreign policy, and taxes. So should voters factor in the candidates’ personalities? Of course they should—that’s probably what the Indiana and North Carolina votes are going to come down to. But there should also be more concern with what these candidates actually believe in.
It’s going to come down to one person representing the Democrats in November. Since both candidates are so similar, why turn to the other side like so many voters claim they will do? Grow up. Don’t s base an opinion solely on race or gender; base it on who can run the country better. After seeing both Barack Obama and President Bill Clinton speak, I safely say that there isn’t a “bad” candidate.
Awwwwe!!
