Before Bhutto’s assassination, I would waver between Obama and Clinton for president. Sometimes I would think Clinton would be a better choice due to her experience and political clout. Then I would think Obama was a better choice because of his ‘untainted’ idealism and apparent intelligence. I never really considered Edwards an option, even though his platform more closely aligns with my own, because he never stood out as “different” enough to drive the change I beleive this country needs. This country needs someone who is as much a visual symbol of change as well as ideological. And what could be more visual than a Woman or a Black Man?
America needs a reversal of trends and ideologies that prevailed for the last 10 years. We need a figurehead that is as completely opposite George W. Bush as we can get. In my mind, GWBush is a born-again, uneducated cowboy-jock. He symbolizes everything I don’t like about this country and its citizens–the religious fanaticism; the devaluation of intelligence, art, and reason; the worship of celebrity and egos; and the rise of aggression, arrogance, and xenophobia.
Obama was my primary choice, seeming to be the one most able to offset those evils, with Clinton a close second. (I would like to see them as running mates.)
After Bhutto’s death, I was struck by the realization that we needed a President who could be a diplomat as well as a figurehead. We need someone who can provide reason and calm in the midst of violent turmoil, someone who is able to encourage talk amongst enemies. And who better to do that than a woman? While there are exceptions to the rule, on the whole, women ARE better social creatures than men–more adept at reading emotions, forming networks and alliances, and easing conflicts. As a diplomat, Hillary Clinton seems to be a far better choice than Barack Obama. Not only because she is a woman, but also because she has actual experience, as First Lady and as Senator, in dealing with foregin dignitaries.
Now, today I see that Obama is ahead of Clinton in the electoral polls, though the race is close yet, and she may still win. I will not be distressed if Obama did secure this nomination. His calm and confident
manner, his easy charisma, and obvious intelligence probably does offset his lack of experience. I believe he is capable of learning quickly the knowledge he needs to get the experience he requires.
I suppose I still don’t know which I prefer to see become the Democratic
nominee! I just hope that whomever wins will be better comparatively to the republican canidates.
Huckabee or Romney…oy! Either one of them would be more of the same, following the trends started by Bush and Regan. Especially Huckabee–an evangelical christian with poor knowledge of foregin affairs and a domestic agenda I find utterly reprehensible (he’s a neocon…’nuff said).
So I wonder, strategically, which democratic canidate is a better contender against the republican canidates?
*Obama vs. Huckabee
*Obama vs. Romney
*Clinton vs. Huckabee
*Clinton vs. Romney
I can’t decide, but I don’t have much faith in the American voters, given the events of the two previous presidential elections. The trends that I have mentioned scare me, and I fear it might continue on to this election. If I am right about that, then Huckabee will win the presidency, regardless of who the democratic contender is, and these trends foretell the death of liberalism in America. This election could very well be the dying gasp of progressivism in America.
Ack, my dramatic fatalism begins to nauseate me.
Suffice to say that I will be on pins and needles until Novemeber, I can feel it….