The primaries are beginning to heat up.
Having watched them in our own class and created boardgames based around them, I don't feel the need to explain them.
Sen. Barack Obama has been deemed an "impatient" politician who will move legislation faster by changing the system.
He also claims to cut off all "strings" from lobbyists.
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Nov06/0,4670,Obama,00.html
While these two statements would be ideal, how can he guarantee to follow through with them?
Already in our class elections, interest groups have become important.
Hasn't every running candidate promised to make things move faster, or change the status quo?
If Sen. Barack Obama does manage to follow through with these promises, does he stand a chance against Sen. Hilary Clinton, let alone the republican candidate?
Senator Hilary Clinton has been accused of playing the gender card as a shield against her opponents (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/us/politics/02cnd-clinton.html?hp) while Senator Barack Obama is enduring the correlation that has been (at first accidentally) drawn between "Obama" and "Osama" (http://mediamatters.org/items/200507120008).
These attacks are underhanded and irrelevant to policies, but will Clinton and Obama's gender and race respectively affect the outcome of the primaries or general election?
For each, how do you predict it will be positive or negative?
Does the emphasis on their gender and race demonstrate the increased highlight on person-oriented politics as opposed to emphasis on policies?
3 comments:
Well I have three things to say. Firstly, everyone in class so far has been promising change because the general population is dissatisfied with the way things are. Secondly, I think the candidates are answering your question in their campaigns. Senator Clinton obviously plays the gender card, making references to the "all-boys club", and openly acknowledges the sexist criticisms of her candidacy. However, I believe these criticisms are only provoked by her own embarrassed awareness of her gender. She tries to dress masculinely and always seems upset or riled on the subject of her gender. On the other hand, Senator Obama, "by principle" (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=3821689&page=2)refuses to play the race card, is very open and charismatic about the subject, and answers questions about his race professionally and tolerantly; as a result, he is hardly harassed and his race becomes a much smaller issue than Clinton's sex.
I agree with Kristina.
Also, Obama could, if he wanted to, play the race card.
Every candidate has to find an edge, and Clinton and Obama have. A female and an African-American, thats plenty of political egde.
But I think Clinton has fumbled a few times with her witty one-liners that are taken with deeper meaning.
I think that Clinton's use of the gender card could possibly have a large effect on how the voters vote. People, however, shouldn't be voting based on gender, or race for that matter. If they only reason why voters are voting for Hilary Clinton is because she is a woman, not because of her platform, America is headed in a bad direction. We need to stay focused on what is important, and simply voting someone into office only based on their race or gender is, if I may be blunt, stupid. Hopefully the Americans will get over the novelty of having a woman president, and will vote for the person who they believe will best lead our country. I’m not saying, however, that Clinton shouldn’t be voted for, just that the voters need to be sure that they are voting for the right reasons.
Post a Comment