The last few days, Hillary Clinton and Obama have been pressing the public to really look at the candidates’ records. Personally, I kind of liked the way Senator Clinton has gone about it more than Senator Obama or even John Edwards. Just from what I’ve seen over the weekend, she seems to have gotten the message from Iowa about the public being tired of negative messages and political attack dogs. While Edwards and Obama still appear to be pointing fingers and making accusations, she seems to be much calmer, less defensive, less abrasive.
But one thing has been nagging me more and more the past week than it usually does about Presidential campaigning. Maybe it’s because I’m just so aware of how many sitting Senators are running this time around — and I can’t forget Governor Richardson who I’m inclined to like best amongst the Democrats but I think it’s simply because they don’t let him talk much.
I keep wondering when was the last time any of these public officials were actually doing the job they have now rather than campaigning for the job they want next? Running for President of the United States appears to be as much a full time job as President of the United States. How can they possibly have time to govern a state or sponsor the kind of bills they claim they support or even vote on the actual bills struggling to become law? More and more I think John Edwards and all those other “former” Senators, Governors, Mayors, and whatnots have the right idea. I just don’t think the ones that are still trying to hold onto their current neglected office, all the while claiming that they are all about serving the public and thinking about what’s best for Middle America, can possibly be doing any good for the public, Middle America or Poorest America while they are traipsing about the country slinging mud at their own party members and over-using the word “change”.
I guess I’d feel better about this whole Election 2008 business if I could find a candidate who really does have experience but plans to approach the presidency with reform in mind, a candidate who is speaks quietly but carries a big stick, a candidate who doesn’t need to stoop to petty tactics to try to make his career look shinier than the others’, a candidate who really does care about the Middle Class and everyone on down and intends to help make the American Dream reachable, a candidate who isn’t distracted by the next big thing in his or her life.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
I kind of like watching the horse race, at least from afar — I read transcripts and watch the occasional speech and give the debates a miss as they’re all mostly fluff. I think the really important thing is not to look at the ads or the campaign but what people have actually done.
It’s kind of funny — maybe it’s because I don’t watch the performances — but I get a different opinion of Hillary Clinton. She may have tweaked her campaign style here or there, but she hasn’t tweaked what her stand is.
So far, though, I’ve been impressed at how substantive the discussions I’ve heard have been. (That’s comparatively substantive.) “Mud-slinging” I tend to think of not as criticizing your opponents but criticizing them for trivial and unfair reasons. I think it’s appropriate to hold our candidates responsible for their legislative affairs, but if, say, Obama started making snide remarks about Clinton’s marriage — that would be mud-slinging.
Thud’s last blog post..If you are new here?
I don’t watch the ads. Can’t stand them. The closer it gets to an election, the more agitated I get and the more stuff I record so I can fast-forward through the commercials.
I tend to agree with you about the “mud-slinging”. To me, it’s useless bickering generally over things that don’t have to do with the campaign. Stuff like the attacks on John Kerry’s military career or his wife’s fortune or Chelsea Clinton’s awkward childhood appearance or how old Barbara Bush appears or Nancy Reagan’s astrologers. It’s also niggling nitpicking over so-called half-facts that aren’t the whole truth and only serve to call the other person into question and in a sense dishonor him or her.
I do think it’s appropriate to hold our candidates responsible for their legislative affairs and even to their promises, but I also think it’s important to hold our candidates to the standards they set for each other. For example, if Obama says Edwards is “unelectable” for some reason, then he better make certain that he doesn’t also fit the bill. I think it’s not only time for responsible legislators, but non-hypocritical ones.
Unfortunately for me, I’ve been listening to the all-politics/all-the-time that’s been on t.v. the last few days. I’m far more impressed with the candidates when they aren’t in the same room together. I kind of have to admit that while I still plan to vote for a Democrat who’s pretty much not even showing in the polls if he makes it to our primary, I no longer feel like I might be physically ill should Hillary Clinton or Obama get the nomination. In fact, I would prefer Hillary over Obama at the moment and I certainly would prefer either of them over Edwards (if he would just stop saying the same thing over and over…), but that’s if I had to pick a front-runner.