Recently, 2008 Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been touring the country since their announcements to run for President. In addition, possible candidate John McCain and his committee have also been participating in a nation wide tour.
During these tours the candidates are just attempting to receive a positive image from voters as they hope to become the next to grab the helm in Whitehouse. All are forced to answer questions that make the public uneasy or have the public questioning their judgments. Hillary has to answer questions on her husband and his effects in office, while Obama must talk about his qualifications in foreign affairs. Both must answer difficult questions and must do so with confidence so that they come out of each tour with a lasting impression in voters’ minds.
While touring, Hillary has been bashed throughout her tour in New Hampshire and have many asking her about her support and vote in favor of the Iraq War, which can be seen in this article or video on CNN.com website. While Obama is smiling ear to ear as he has been opposed of the war from the beginning and is using that as a tactic while campaigning throughout the United States. Probable candidate, John McCain was recently bombarded with questions concerning his vote to prompt a United States invasion of Iraq, seen here in a New York Times video.
This has brewed up some controversy begging me to ask the question, should previous votes from past years have any effect on their campaigns today. Is it fair for the public and media to criticize McCain and Clinton for their votes in favor of the war at a time when Americans were looking to punish anyone for 9/11? At the same time, is it right for Obama to use his stance against the war to create a positive campaign?
Kellan O'Neill
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Sorry apparently the links didnt work, here they are.
Article: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/12/2008.campaign.trail.ap/index.html
Video:
http://video.on.nytimes.com/ifr_main.jsp?nsid=a-4cd3c5d8:110dc217553:-bf5&rf=bm&st=1171925991156&mp=WMP&cpf=true&fvn=9&fr=021907_035412_w4cd3c5d8x110dbc209b9xw5b43&rdm=58825.252530719794
Should your past hurt your future? That is an interesting question, if you are going to be in politics everything you do can can be used against you whether it is past, present or future. To have reins over the most powerful position in the United States, voters what desicions justified in a way that they can understand. Clinton, Obama and McCain all knew what they were getting themselves into when they signed up tp run for President. In order for them to gain voters they have to be willing to defend their past stances however, I do not think their private lives is something that they should be defending in Hillary Clinton's case. Last week, I read a headline in the NY Times that said, "Clinton Reminds New Hampshire, I'm with Bill". I am not sure why this is significant to her campaign, whether she is with him or not it should not be the media's focus or the publics. Their focus should be on what she can do for this country and how she plans to do it.
In regards to your questions about whether it is fair that Clinton and McCain be criticized about their stance on the War when citizens are looking for someone to blame, I don't think it is. Clinton and McCain could have a different approach on who to handle the invasion on Iraq that could of had our troops in and out of Iraq. In fairness to Obama's stance if he is not going to war then he is not. That does not mean that he has voters vote, it just means that the smooth course he is on now is only temperary. Each candidate will be tested on this long journey to becoming the next President so they all should just strap on their seat belts because it is going to be a bumpy ride for all of them especially because citizens are not happy with the Bush Administration.
I do think your past has a huge affect on your future. Regardless whether or not our mission was to punish those for 9/11...those were still decisions that were made during that time and if something like that happens again (which we all hope it does not) then Hillary Clinton and John McCain might make the same decisions. I don't see anything wrong with Obama's campaign tactics. If he is against the war, as many people in our country are, then he is a smart man to let the country know how he feels. These candidates know that every move they make will be watched very carefully, including anything they may have said or done in the past. It's always worked that way and it always will.
I think it's the nature of American politics to know that whatever you say/do/vote is going to be remembered and talked about when you put yourself in the spot light. Thusly, I do think it's fair that their votes are being brought up and talked about. It's okay for politicians to change their minds, and it is important to know how strongly they feel about certain subjects.
It is fair to criticize them for supporting the war in a time when virtually everyone was; I think that American's will realize that the war had a ton of support at the beginning and that like most of the US, they can change their minds too.
As for Obama, it's an excellent strategy and PR tactic for him to use his stance against the war from the campaign. It gives him a strong image and there's no reason he shouldn't use it to his advantage.
Unlike the post from last week dealing with personal isses effecting whether or not people vote for a candidate, i feel that past political votes or proposals should. It is important for voters to know the legal history that has surrounded the candidates because that is a racord of how they would have governed at that period of time. Looking back voters could decide wheter or not they would have voted for them at that point of time and then see what the result of such proposals would be. I find this process to be one of the most useful ways of selecting a candidate. This process is used when supreme court justices are chosen during the approval process. Most times justices are either chosen or denied based on the same characteristics of previous decisions and whether or not they have enough knowledge/history to be qualified. Although we might feel that obama stance on not going to war is the correct one, there are many who support the war and feel that being at war was the right choice for ther US. It is a double edged sword, and only time will tell who does a better job of wining over the public with their campaign tactics.
I believe that previous votes from past years should be brought up during campaigns. Whether or not I think they should have an effect on the campaign depends on the issue and how the candidate handles defending why he/she voted previously.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and if Hilary and McCain stand by their vote to begin a war, then good for them. By backing away from a vote that they had strongly believed in in the past, it would lead some to believe that they would make life-changing votes in the future, that they would later change their minds about-and that can be uneasy to some. When Hilary and McCain explain why they voted the way they did, and what their views are now on that topic, it is up to the public to decide whether or not they are going to hold it against the candidates. Obviously everything is publicized about each candidate and it is up to each voter/constituent to do their own research to see how their candidates views are currently and if they still stand by them. This can be unfair, but that is life (especially life in the public eye).
As far as Obama using his stance against the war to create a positive campaign-I agree that he might as well go for it. In recent polls of our nation, it seems that there is an overwhelming percentage of Americans that are not happy with the war. If Obama wants to gain the attention of the American people, I think that stating his stance against the war is a perfect campaign strategy (and he does of course have the historical backings that he was against this war from the start to help back him up).
It would be naive, to say the least, for these Presidential candidates to think that any past actions or comments would not directly affect their future endeavors in politics. It is the job of many, especially in the media, to dig up any or all information pertaining to people in the public eye, especially those involved in politics, not only as their job, but because the public has a direct interest in the lives of someone who is potentially going to represent them. Clinton, Obama, and McCain, all people who have been involved in politics one way or another for years, were well-aware of the repercussions and challenges that they may face, but found it a necessary sacrifice to be given the chance to become the future President. While some other students, both in class and on the blog , believe that the candidates' personal lives should not be under discussion, it has to be. Is it necessary? No, not at all. However, the public, and other candidates, want to know past behaviors, even if it traces back to maybe or maybe not "inhaling" back in college. It is the opinion of this writer, that this intrusion of personal privacy is ridiculous but inevitable. While people want to be at ease knowing that their candidate was a choir boy back in the day, there should be more concern and more interest in the candidate's policy plan, domestic concerns, and international affairs. I worry more about how my country is going to be run for the next 4 years rather than if my President smoked pot at a frat party 40+ years ago
In regards to the question proposed on criticizing certain candidate's stance on the War in Iraq, it is fair for them to be criticized and questioned. Yes, while they expressed their opinions during an extremely hectic time for this nation, the American people still need to know if that opinion is the same today. Whether or not they support the war is of lesser importance than to why they do or do not. The American people would rather see their stance and possible solutions, regardless whether or not it was pro or anti-war. Besides, these challenges will be presented to them not only through out the campaign but also in their potential Presidency, so if they cannot handle the heat now, then they need to get out of the kitchen.
I agree with blog poster c.steele when said that just because Obama is against the war does not mean that he has the campaign in the bag. Yes, while polls have indicated that the majority of Americans are not in favor of the war in Iraq, it is because of different reasons. Not all those opposed now were opposed in the beginning, leaving one to think that perhaps it is not the war itself but maybe the administration that is running it (cough, cough).
Ultimately, it is going to be a long and exciting campaign, with a list of candidates who are breaking boundaries and making political history, and those who are facing the challenge of cleaning up the mess left by Bush. Will it be charm and charisma that will win the election, or will it be sound policies and objectives? Only time, and the American public, will tell.
Post a Comment