It’s too easy to depict President Bush as the catalyst for the failure of the democratic system in America these past 6 1⁄2 years — after all, it’s not every administration that gets a chance to almost advocate torture, abandon the rule of law, ignore the demands of the populace, and destroy United States foreign policy. But then again, most administrations don’t make all four mistakes because, well, that’s pretty stupid.
Unfortunately, the problem with the democratic system isn’t that these bad administrations come about — it’s that we let them take advantage of our very stable system of government. That’s right — it’s our fault. We don’t vote enough; we don’t tell our senators how we feel; we don’t run for office and try to change things ourselves; we don’t lobby for interest groups; we don’t research our candidates; we don’t attract the attention of the media and make our problems known. We are, in effect, politically retarded, and let me put this plainly: it has to stop now. After all, what are we but the most integral piece in our government?
Consider it fortunate that in the history of our nation, we have never had a complete political shift of Russian, or perhaps, revolutionary-French design thanks to our Constitutional rights. In the same way that a very slight margin of Democratic votes in 2000 might have averted Bush’s victory and prevented the War in Iraq, the political scandals, and the foreign policy crises, it does matter. In 2008, your vote is the most important. Never forget that.
Here are your 2008 presidential candidates:
Hillary Clinton (D)
First elected a senator in 2000, representing the state of New York, Clinton quickly maintained her place in the public eye by going instantaneously from First Lady to legislator. All people seem to remember of her is her failed health-care policy in the early ’90s, and her vote in favor of sending troops to Iraq. Concerning the former: universal health-care, although a daunting task, is very much a necessary thing. There have not been any significant domestic improvements in the United States since the Clinton administration, and I appreciate Senator Clinton’s dedication to the issue. The Iraq invasion, on the other hand, is a touchy subject. Although I personally did not feel that it was proper to simply invade a country without very many diplomatic thoughts, I suppose that most people — Senator Clinton included — felt that it would be a repeat of the First Gulf War — fast and furious. No one especially counted on the dramatic civil war that would erupt from the ruins of Baghdad.
Still, was there any real justification for the invasion? Was Saddam really that much of a threat? The problem is that, in tune with the secrecy of Bush’s regime, no one really knew. The American public was amazingly uninformed about the technicalities of the invasion. According to statistics gathered by World Public Opinion, the media was responsible for an enormous amount of the confusion. As a result, this was the public response of the invasion:
An in-depth analysis of a series of polls conducted June through September found 48% incorrectly believed that evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been found, 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and 25% that world public opinion favored the US going to war with Iraq. Overall 60% had at least one of these three misperceptions.
Clinton was not the only Democratic senator to vote in favor of the resolution — John Edwards, also a presidential candidate, voted alongside her. But now, looking at the atrocities committed in areas such as Haditha and Abu Ghraib, we know that the invasion went horribly wrong. It doesn’t serve to place the blame on one individual alone.
And then, there’s the matter of Hillary’s personal image. She doesn’t fit into the niche of the “woman politician” that people imagine. Her stance on domestic issues is absolutely remarkable, well-informed, and consistent. Yet, how many people can picture Hillary independent of Bill? How many will go racing to the polls in November 2008, expecting Bill Clinton to take charge of the government again? When against such an obstacle, of course Hillary has made the right choice to step out on her own. She needs to prove to the public that she is a politician in her own right. Very few people among my peers like Clinton, but the response I get from them on the subject is “I don’t know why.” Personally, Clinton appeals to me because I approve of her stances on certain topics. At her recent appearance in Iowa, she was not only warm and inviting but inspiring. She has become a bit more idealistic in the past few years, trying to tap into the warmth of her husband’s speeches from his candidacy and presidency, but she has not given up her focus on the issues important to her: universal health care, foreign policy, and domestic reforms. Unfortunately, as long as people fail to regard Clinton as a separate political entity from her husband, people will continue to fear her. Below is an excerpt from a New Yorker article about Bill Clinton, entitled “The Wanderer” — September 18, 2006:
“They will viscerally hate her, because she’s smart, because she’s ideological, and because they are generally afraid of her world view,” he went on. “With Bill Clinton, you could negotiate with him. The feeling is, you can’t move her. He’s warm, she’s cold; he was a politician, she’s a theoretician. This is how people feel—and perception is reality.”
View Clinton’s stances on important issues »
Barack Obama (D)
Every presidential election needs a fresh face; 2004’s was Dennis Kucinich; 2008’s is Barack Obama, Illinois’ junior Senator. Although Obama has only been in office since 2005 (following his election in 2004), he feels that he is the best-equipped to heal America. Indeed, there is something rather refreshing about Obama. He possesses a tremendous amount of charm and energy, marred only by his tremendously short amount of political service. Although Obama’s campaigning makes us feel as if he can change America, has he truly had enough experience to lead the country? He is tremendously qualified as a legislator, having served on Illinois’ Senate prior to his election — but as a president? His challenge in 2008 is to prove that he has the political force necessary to serve — and serve well — as president. He is incredibly lucky that he did not have to make any decision on entering Iraq — that seems to be tainting a lot of campaigns already.
View Obama’s stances on important issues »
John Edwards (D)
Although Edwards received a bit of publicity from his Vice Presidential run in 2004, alongside silly old John Kerry, he has long established himself as a moderate candidate with both the dedication and tenacity to turning things around in 2008. His wife, Elizabeth Edwards, would make a fantastic First Lady, and there’s just something moving about how close his family is. Although Christian politics are quite aggravating to me, John Edwards doesn’t seem as if he really does fit into the mold of the standard Christian politician. During an interview, he was asked about his view on homosexuality and civil unions and the like — a subject that most candidates try to avoid until they have a clear advantage over their opponents. He said the following, which really struck a chord with me:
I think it’s from my own personal culture and faith belief. I struggle myself with imposing my faith belief. The question is whether I, as president, should impose my views on gay marriage because I know where it comes from. I’m aware of why I believe what I believe. And I think there is consensus around this idea of no discrimination, partnership benefits, civil unions.
The fact that he finds issue with imposing his personal belief on others is just amazing. I think Edwards would make a terrific President as well as Clinton. He’s just a bit more electable.
View Edwards’ stances on important issues »
Al Gore (D)
There’s still some suspicion over whether the former Vice President and Oscar-winner will run for election. He has a strong following, made almost ironclad by the release of his powerful documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, and for that reason, global warming awareness has risen to new heights. But what would an Al Gore presidency be like? We almost knew in 2000, and I think it is that incomplete feeling that most powerfully drives us to want him to run again. We know, for one, that the United States would strive to become a leader in environmental policy. We know that Al Gore’s political insight is invaluable, and we know that he has had great experience throughout politics. Gore has said frequently that he has “fallen out of love with politics,” so although a candidacy might be out of the question, perhaps an appointment might not?
Mitt Romney (R)
I don’t particularly want to vote Republican in 2008, because there’s such a grand showing of viable Democratic candidates, and the Republican party has been, somewhat unfairly (for the newcomers), tainted by Bush’s legacy. Mitt Romney is somewhat like a Democratic-Republican. Although he’s staunchly conservative on issues such as gay marriage and abortion and just maybe everything, which instantly makes me withdraw my vote, he’s still an appealing response to conservatives who can’t stand John McCain (let’s face it, who can? The man is flat-out unelectable).
On the Mormon issue: stop treating Mormons like a cult. The man can hardly speak about his political ideologies without being questioned about his religion. So what if he’s Mormon?
View Romney’s stances on important issues »
Rudy Giuliani (R)
Although I approve of Rudy Giuliani’s role after 9/11 when he was launched to the forefront of the world’s media, I don’t necessarily view him as presidential material. There’s too much grit in him, and his policies, while the liberal equivalent of Romney’s, seem to echo “city”, not “nation.”
View Giuliani’s stances on important issues »
Michael Bloomberg (?)
There’s something about Bloomberg that just says “normal” and that is absolutely amazing. Although he left the Republican party last month, he has not joined a party since then, which raises questions that he will run as an Independent, if at all, or perhaps rejoin the Democratic party, which he was a member of until his mayoral run in 2001. Bloomberg is a philanthropist, an environmentalist, a reformer, and a visionary.
He has not yet announced a presidential run, but that announcement may be forthcoming. He certainly has the money to ensure a successful campaign, and he will not splinter the Republican party in any way (I hate splinter parties), which shows that he has quite a bit of political foresight. I look forward to hearing if he’s going to campaign.
Read 6 comments (Leave a comment?)
Jim Whimpey said:
I would be pleased if Obama ran and won, I just really like the guy. I would be pleased further if Al Gore ran and won. I would be happy if Al Gore won, ran for two terms with Obama at his side, then, after the two terms, have Obama take over with his 8 years of vice-presidential experience. This would be the ideal situation as I think Gore needs to be president, not for him personally but for the good of the planet. Obama lacks experience and is relatively young, 8 years at Gore’s side and he’d be ripe to charismatically continue Gore’s good work.
I don’t like Hilary, she sucks. Neither could I support a Republican not that there’s one I particularly like. The Democrats really have an all star team.
Posted on July 8, 2007 12:14 AM; Permalink
Ranjani said:
Al still has a chance, but his window of opportunity is running out. He has enough force to win the election, if only he’d run.
I know Obama is going to win something along the way, probably a Vice Presidential post. I’m thinking that Edwards or Clinton will get the Presidential nomination, but since the parties normally pair up a Northerner and a Southerner, or something like that, Edwards or Gore would have to be on one ticket or another.
That’s my thought anyway.
Posted on July 8, 2007 12:21 AM; Permalink
Scheifman said:
1) Presidential pardons are a fairly integrated aspect of our government. If you’re against Bush’s pardon of Libby, are you also against any executive actions that impact the judicial system, even when they’re constitutionally recognized? Pardons are definitely constitutional, so I hardly find Bush’s action “abandoning the rule of law.”
2) The demands of the populace are funneled through our representatives in our government. That’s how a representative democracy works. Elected officials can ignore our demands all they want; we’re often stupid, and we’ll just elect a different guy next time. Our representatives are believers in their ideals. Vote for people that favor your policies, and you’ll get change. In that, I agree with you.
3) Bush did not destroy our foreign policy. If you’re going to blame someone, blame Truman for entangling us in the Middle East by backing Israel, or blame each successive president that aggressively controlled other nations and put up dictatorships during the Cold War, or blame Osama bin Laden and Muslim fanatics. Bush was essentially trapped into doing what he’s done in foreign policy by necessity of the time and the precedent of policies before him, and he’s done it a lot better than anyone might have. Horrible presidency, sure, but it happened to him and he did what he could with it.
Posted on July 8, 2007 12:41 PM; Permalink
Ranjani said:
Alex: 1. I’m against Bush’s pardon of Libby because I feel as if he and Cheney are hiding something; that’s the general impression. The difference between normal presidential pardons and these is that Bush’s pardon was for someone in his administration who was sentenced for the revelation of secret information — which may mean it is not an isolated crime.
2. Yep yep. If the Democrats mess things up, we usually go Republican, and vice versa.
3. I didn’t say that Bush was alone — I regard Clinton’s efforts in Eastern Europe as equally unsettling, but Bush’s actions in Iraq have angered a good portion of the world. Afghanistan was justified; Iraq just felt like revenge. I’m not sure what Gore would have done had 9/11 occurred on his shift, or Clinton for that matter. I agree that until about 1980, with Reagan, we were wading around in a mess of failed foreign policy. Somehow, this administration makes me feel as if we’ve returned to those exact sentiments about the world.
Posted on July 8, 2007 4:11 PM; Permalink
Zachary said:
Personally, I would love to see a FEMALE president for once, it could really benefit our nation. I like how Hillary can still dream a bit, because it’s the only way things change, and change well. She doesn’t seem to me to be the kind of person to give up on important issues and reforms, which is what I think the presidency should be all about. I am also interested in John Edwards and his open policy towards controversial issues. I hate it when people play the system time and time again so that they might impose themselves on the nation like some kind of sculpter. Of course, everything that they think is the ULTIMATE truth. It just is, and that’s that as far as they are concerned. Those are the two candidates that I’m most interested in, and as for John Kerry, I think he should become a comedian. :)
Congratulations on getting your own domain!
Posted on July 17, 2007 7:11 PM; Permalink
Ranjani said:
Zachary: I love how Clinton’s stayed absolutely dedicated to the same things over years and years. That is what we need — consistency. Besides that, a new president means a new cabinet, which means that Clinton will most definitely not be alone in making decisions, like some people believe Bush is now. Checks and balances does exist, and it’s time that a lawyer with respect for the judicial system took office.
I believe that Edwards’ tolerance will make him a fantastic VP. There’s a lot more openness to be had among any of the Democratic candidates that’s a far cry from… well, what we see now.
And Kerry’s only funny when you’re looking at him ;)
Thanks!
Posted on July 17, 2007 11:57 PM; Permalink