Every four years we get the honor of 'choosing' who our next president will be. We used to have a culture that pushed us to vote for the person we believed in. Now our culture dictates we vote for the person 'most likely to win'. We are taught that the only candidates likely to win come from the Democrat or Republican parties.
We (the people) do not choose the candidates for those parties. We could, but generally the party leadership decides beforehand the people they think would be acceptable. Then we just enjoy the illusion of deciding who gets to be the nominee for the party out of that preselected group. There have been exceptions to this trend in our history, but for the most part that is the way the system seems to work.
So who are we looking for this presidency?
The one on the way out...
Hillary Clinton
It appears that despite her late comeback she is on the way out. While she is close to Obama in citizen votes, she is losing to him in party leader ("superdelegate") votes. Perhaps the Democratic party does not want to be ruled by the Clinton's for the next four years.
Now to the very likely contenders...
In the Red Corner...
John McCain
The 'Maverick' Senator of Arizona.
Pros:
- Voted against the use of torture by the US military
- Was held in a concentration camp in Viet Nam and against sympathizes with war vets
- Knows the military and is familiar with wartime situations
- Experienced in politics, knows how to pass votes he needs to get through.
- Is not close to the fundamentalist religious right of the Republicans.
Cons:
- Will follow the Bush strategy of perpetual war in Iraq and preemptive war with Iran.
- Knows nothing about economics, will increase spending and further kill the economy. Our wars waste billions, spending money we dont have wastes billions, he would do both. He would tell you that three wars (Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan) and seven hundred military bases across the world are necessary to save us from the terrorists.
- Is a tool for lobbyists.
- Talks big talk on change, but really that change is not significant.
- He is really old!
- He makes bad choices in priestly allies. That is what he gets for trying to pander to an electorate he never cared about anyway.
If you do not like endless wars, he is not your guy. If you like sound fiscal policy he is not your guy. Personally I used to like him, but the more I have read about him the less I agree with just about everything he stands for.
In the Blue Corner...
Barak Obama
The Senator of 'Change'.
Pros:
- The slickest orator this side of Quintillian.
- Very likeable, smart and new to the political scene. Gives one the impression he has not bought into the system yet.
- Recognizes that some things need to change for the country to prosper.
- Has a decent understanding of the younger voters and their needs.
- Comes from a modest background.
- He sees that our foreign policy does not work and openly says he would try something new. Like... heaven forbid, talking to people and fostering alliances.
- He can pull off presidential very well.
- Foreign nations already love him. He could be our next JFK.
Cons:
- He may take longer to bring the troops home than he promises.
- Many of the people closest to him (wife and two pastors who were mentors) either revile the country or are pretty racist. While it is a persons right to have an opinion, it makes one wonder what influence they have on him. The thought is that he talks about seeing past divisions and unifying the country, but then surrounds himself with people who see only division. Bush promised to be a uniter as well.
- Will nearly quadruple government spending. This could very well break our economy. He has a history of being a runaway spender with taxpayer money.
- Despite his public statements to the contrary, he still tips his hat and makes nice with powerful lobby groups which have influenced our fiscal and foreign policy to the disasters they are today.
- He is an unknown quantity due to his lack of time in office. Will he be another Bush or the leader he presents himself to be? We do not know.
If you like sound money policy, he is not your guy. If you like small government, he is not your guy. Despite that I still like the promise he represents, which is a new direction in foreign policy.
Ultimately, both guys will bloat up the government even more. They will both cave to a point to special interests. The big difference I see is that one will spend all of our money on foreign wars and keep us hated worldwide. The other will spend all of our money at home and make us loved worldwide. Either way, we will become a much more bankrupt nation. So the way it looks to me at the moment, we can be broke and loved, or broke and hated.
