The short answer, I believe, is no. Now I'm not so cynical or jaded to believe that the fine people of this country are incapable of placing their faith in a woman or a black man. Instead, I believe that this country will not put its fate (through a popular vote) in the hands of THIS particular woman or THIS particular black man. Maybe someday the people of this nation will elect a woman or minority leader, but I doubt it will be in 2008.
Now if the democratic party has it their way, one of your choices at the polls in 2008 will be either Barrack Obama or Hillary Clinton. The charismatic Obama seems to be the fashionable, chic pick of the moment. Backed by hollywood heavyweights, he has been the media darling who has been reluctant to commit himself to the race. Earlier this month, he announced that he's not quite ready to announce wether or not he'll officially throw his hat into the ring. By announcing that he intends to form a Presidential Exploratory Committee, he has bought himself some more time and more importantly, by floating this trial balloon, he has an opportunity to gague his ability to raise funds for the race.
The Hillary Clinton Presidential machine has been packed and ready to go since 2004. She has experience and an early lead in opinion polls over Obama. The tidal wave of Hollywood and media support for Obama must be bad news for Clinton, who probably thought the Democratic nomination was all sewed up. Not so fast, missy. Obama has the support of George Clooney! And that black vote that you thought you had won for sure? You can say buh-bye to it if Obama throws his hat into the ring.
But none of this addresses why I think this country is not ready for Hillary or Barrack to lead it...
I was sick of hearing about Monica back in 1998...
When The Starr Report was released on September 11th, 1998 (yeah, the date is accurate, I double-checked), the Clinton legacy was signed, sealed and delivered. The man who could have been one of the great leaders of our day instead will be remembered for cigars, blue dresses, and getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar. And all the while, his dutiful wife stood by his side, defending her husband when possible, dismissing reports against overwhelming evidence, and finally acquiescing and forgiving.
Mistake? Or sign of weakness? Or will the woman who stood by her man while he cheated gain her some sort of brownie points with the women of America? The bottom line for Hillary is that as much as she will never admit it, her fate was sealed when Bill cheated on her... and she decided to stay with him.
By acknowledging and forgiving that infidelity she has opened herself to many criticisms that the average male candidate would never have to answer to. There will be those who say it's a sign of weakness. Others who say that this is Bill's way of getting back into the White House. The Clinton stigma will follow Hillary no matter what she does. It will effect the way her politics are viewed. It will effect the way her candidacy is run. It will effect the manner in which the Republicans campaign against her. It will effect the way the populace votes on election day in 2008.
His speech gave me chills too...
If you watched the Democratic National Convention in 2004 and were lucky enough to catch Barrack Obama's keynote speech, you were probably moved. I sat and watched the young Senator from Illinois captivate that crowd and all those who watched that night with the expertise of a charismatic thespian recouting a Shakespearian Sonnet. He talked about things like hope, respect, and integrity and managed to make it all sound believable. From his lips, the words almost seeemed to find new meaning. The passion, the intelligence, the charisma and purpose of his words were piercing. One of the great speeches I have ever had the privelge of seeing. (you can view it below in 2 parts)
The attention that Obama garnered after this speech thrust him into the national spotlight. He's a fixture on CNN, MSNBC, and even FOxNews nowadays. You can find him on red carpets, flanked by the likes of George Clooney and Brad Pitt. Or on capital hill with Jesse Jackson and Bill Clinton.
His meteoric rise can be attributed to not only his appeal and charisma as an orator, but also to the media and pop culture society that we live in today. We want our MTV, and we want it now. This first term senator is by all accounts (even his own) still green when it comes to politics. His only glaring weakness is also part of his appeal. He is not viewed as a "politics as usual" senator. Somehow he is seen by many as outside of that system, but in Washington D.C., the media giveth and the media taketh away.
What today is called fresh and exciting is called inexperienced tomorrow. The hollywood backers that he rubs elbows with now become eccentric confidants when his campaign reaches California. The one-term senator who doesn't have to kowtow to the special interests now becomes the ambassador to foreign nations with zero experience if and when he takes the reigns as commander in chief. Part of what makes him great also makes him wrong for the job at this time.
The Deomcratic Party will have none of it, however. Their boy is hot now and they're gonna throw him into that flame whether he's ready or not. The prospect of 4 more years of seasoning and a run in 1012 when he really might have a shot at not only a landslide victory, but of changing the landscape of world politics seems too far off for some.
Count me as one who hopes he does decide to wait. But also count me as one who will vote for him now if he does decide to run. He would not be either the youngest or the most inexperienced person who has ever sought, or even won, the presidency. You only need to go back to John Kennedy to find a politician who landed himself in the White House with such a short resume.
1 comment:
I would vote for him if I was an American. Time for some change in the US.
Post a Comment