In my opinion, you unfairly discarded presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in a recent column (“Don’t Discount Al,” ODE, Feb. 13, 2007). More important, however, I feel that characterizing these candidates’ push to be president as being driven by a desire to be either the first black or first woman president was inappropriate. Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton are public servants and with their liberal policies and dynamic personalities, they are presented with the chance to redefine American politics and lead our generation into our defining times. Their progressive solutions to this nation’s most pressing concerns transcend race and gender. Simply defining them by their race and gender buys into that media circus that you are telling us to avoid.
Beyond the sensationalism of Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton lies the substance and characteristics necessary to win the support of American voters. From reforming health care to cover the 49 million uninsured Americans to reestablishing positive ties to the international community, these candidates have struck a chord that has ignited popular support. With the elections of 2008 shaping up to be defined by the demand for change, it is time for us to change the way we evaluate the presidential hopefuls.
You argue that when casting a vote it “should always be because they are the best, the most experienced and the most accomplished.” Maybe this is the way that it has always been, but I feel new factors need to be considered. If anything should be learned from President George W. Bush, it is that personality matters. The voting public needs to evaluate the personal attributes of whoever the nominee ends up being. Mr. Obama, through his oratory skill, has demonstrated qualities of optimism, hopefulness and determination to accomplish the things people believe to be impossible. Mrs. Clinton, in turn, has proven over her public life to be strong, fearless, and incredibly intelligent. These traits are what determine the leadership skills of the candidates, and taking them into account is vital when deciding on who is best to lead this country.
When considering Al Gore for the presidency, I once again have to disagree with your idea of him being the ideal candidate. His time has passed, but his efforts to promote awareness on global climate change will prove to be invaluable. Because of his efforts, all the nominees must adequately address global warming and offer realistic solutions to the problem. Al Gore has not held a public office since Sept. 11, 2001, nor has he personally won an election in more than 20 years. Coming back to take the most powerful job in the world seems like a problematic transition to me. My dream would be for Al Gore to serve once again as Vice President of the United States. It would be a historically amazing move, a two-time vice president, where he could devote all of his time to saving the planet. It would be his sole responsibility to force Washington to pass reforms to combat carbon emissions and address energy concerns. This is an area that would best suit Al Gore and best benefit, in this case, all of humanity.
What we should be hoping for now is that when the time comes Americans, specifically the youth, turn out in record numbers to vote, because this is clearly going to be the most important election of all time.
Matthew Garvey is a University student
Characterizing candidates by race, gender is unfair
Daily Emerald
February 15, 2007
0
More to Discover