Candidates A-Go-Go

We're into the election season early. For the first time I could remember, there have been debates from the candidates from both sides, trying to sell themselves in terms of what they can offer to the American people. I have to admit, there are still questions that I have about what each person running for office (declared and undeclared) has to offer. After all, we're in contentious times here.

We're in an unwinnable war in which President George W. Bush has envisioned as a South Korea model. In fact, the American leader wants troops to be a presence in Iraq for more than fifty years. That's right. You heard me. Fifty years. And with the candidates that are on the table now who want the highest job in the land, it is very important to hear from them how they are going to deal with the presence there. In fact, I have not heard one refer to the war in Iraq as an occupation. That is an important point to note in terms of voting someone into office.

Furthermore, both sides have been rather coy in trying to describe what they would do in terms of bettering the United States landscape in terms of jobs, health care and reducing the national debt. Still those are very interesting aspects that need to be brought forth because they affect us in a daily basis. Especially notable is what they are going to do about education. After all, there are plenty of young people who are graduating in May and June seeking jobs. And if the economy is bent on outsourcing and downsizing its workforce, where does it leave them?

To note, the only candidate who has especially worked on the aspects of poverty, jobs and health care has been John Edwards. Mr. Edwards, a former running mate of Massachussetts Senator John Kerry, has been very vocal about combatting poverty in the United States. In fact, he had set up a center just to do that. It is one of the most important things that we have to look into in order to have a society that is not predicated on crime and frictional unemployment. When you think about it, when people have jobs and are able to make a living for their families, they don't think about unsavory ways to make money. This was a fact during the Clinton years and it could be that way again--if he's on the right track regarding this measure.

The other important thing has to do with the likability as well as the intelligence of the candidate. Surely within the crop of political hopefuls that have been on camera during the debates, there are charismatic people who could draw a crowd by their message. Unfortunately, charisma is something. But when it is tied to intellect, then we have something here. Let's face it. We have suffered with the gaffes and the missteps of an ineffectual leader for six years. The American people deserve better in their hopes for a national leader. We have to have someone who can not only have a common touch with the working man and woman, but also someone who can use their smarts for good in terms of domestic and national policy.

What is even more, but underreported in terms of candidate eligibility is the notion of one's intolerance for cruelty. Mr. Bush, allegedly through several books (most notably Dr. Justin Frank's Bush on the Couch [2002]), has been known to lack empathy--especially when it came to the plight of the underserved in society. One highly publicized emphasis on this was during Hurricane Katrina in which the President of the United States stayed on vacation while people suffered on rooftops waiting for aid. And how some New Orleaneans put it now is that he flew over the devestated area and landed elsewhere instead of getting in touch with the people. And their neglect continues especially with the latest news of trailers that were constructed with formaldahyde. That alone has caused not only the adult residents in the FEMA structures health problems; their children have suffered immensely from this constructional flaw. The second notable aspect is the lack of feeling for the innocent civilians who have died during the "occupation". Mr. Bush has said few words about their plight in wartorn Iraq. Instead, he and his cohorts focus on democracy without any cultural or historical understanding of the region nor its peoples.

It is about time we elect someone with a conscience who can treat all people with dignity. I know I'm not the only one, but isn't it about time we look past someone who can just look good in photo-op that says the right things, but does not convey any feeling behind it? We need someone who is actually genuine that can sit in the chair of the Presidency.

The other aspect is the "secrecy" and the undoing of civil liberties in American society. Not one candidate has has the gumpton to speak about the wiretapping and datamining that has occurred as a result of the NSA program. It would be entirely helpful if a debate was set up on this fact. Furthermore, what has been trouble some is the corruption that has occurred within the Bush White House. I know that the candidates are walking on eggshells to please everyone right now, but if one would be vocal about this and show that there would be changes in place to protect our rights in America, it would be far better than just waiting around and watching people vote with their feet instead of with their heads on this issue.

The only thing now is to sit and wait to see how this unfolds. I'm not going to kid you. The next President of the United States will have a long row to tow in terms of trying to rebuild America in terms of its foreign policy and domestic issues. Yes, terrorism is a problem as well, but I think that there are other situations on the plate that have to be looked at instead of using fear as a tactic in order to get votes. So, keep your eyes people and your minds keen. We've got to scrutinize every candidate and their voting record like there's no tomorrow. Our society depends on it.