You know, it’s not that I was disinterested in the political process earlier, but tonight I managed to watch about 95% of the New Hampshire Debates, first with all the Republican candidates and then with the Democratic candidates.
The first debate very easily proved that Mitt Romney is George W Bush, Part II. Same with Guiliani. The people that stood out as seeming cognizant of the actual state of America and what needed to be done were John McCain, and to a lesser degree, Ron Paul. Don’t get me wrong, I love Ron Paul as a spoiler, but when it comes to actually seeing the man as being in the Oval Office, I have some trouble. John McCain is an intellectual who has proven experience in bipartisan progress. Huckabee also did admirably, and watching him he definitely seemed more personable and “together” than Romney, for instance.
The second debate between the three front-runners in the Democratic Party– Obama, Edwards, and Clinton, and also Bill Richardson of New Mexico. This proved to be rather– lively- shall we say, because there were some heated moments, especially betweem Clinton and Edwards. The night basically came down to Edwards and Obama referring to themselves as ‘agents of change’ and Clinton and Richardson as the status quo.
And that’s when Clinton got incensed and went on a rant that was as sharp and passionate as I’ve ever seen her. To me, it was exactly what I needed to see– that she’s not going to be pushed around. That’s a quality I want to see in a President. Smart, straight-forward, tough, and sharp. She defended herself by saying that just because she’s been in the process for 35 years, that doesn’t mean that she can’t be an agent of change– and with her logic, I bought it. It made sense.
But perhaps the most impassioned and moving answer of the night came from Edwards when he talked about how the middle class needs to be addressed and not the lobbyists in Washington. I’d heard (ad nauseum) about how he had grown up as the son of mill-workers, but I suppose tonight was the first time it seemed relevant to why passion for the middle class is important to a Presidency.
I made a comment to my family the other day that Americans tend to vote for whoever seems most impassioned. Dubya vs. Kerry, Dubya vs. Gore, Clinton vs. Dole, Clinton vs. HW Bush, HW Bush v Dukakis, and so forth. Intellectuals don’t do completely well in elections, even if they may have better ideas. A person needs to be able to CONNECT in order to become President.
So here’s a breakdown:
Obama v Huckabee — Toss-up, both are personable
Edwards v Huckabee– Once again, a toss up
Clinton v Huckabee – Huckabee
Obama/Edwards vs. Romney – Dems
Clinton v. Romney – Clinton — it’s a matter of change
Obama/Edwards v McCain – Dems
Clinton v McCain – NO CLUE. Both clearly intellectual and able to look at the ‘big picture’
Dems v Ron Paul– Dems
But anyway, after all this what I’ve noticed is that there’s been a galvanization of myself I’ve noticed. It’s a chance to change the country. Call it naivete of being a first time voter, call it something else. But I want to help change this country. And I’m glad that I have the chance to do so …
with a single vote.
Recent Comments