Now that the people of California have successfully turned their state into one giant movie set by electing Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor, it's time to look at elections on a larger scale. That is, the race for the next president of the United States. With the election just over a year away and the primary election drawing rapidly near, American voters have a tough decision on their plates: re-elect current President George W. Bush, or choose from one of the nine top candidates fighting to realize their dreams of calling the White House home - and the drama is just beginning.
Maybe it's not as great of a spectacle as the historically peculiar California recall election, but the battle for the next president has already started causing tensions among voters of opposing political parties. But more importantly, there is tension between the candidates themselves - especially the Democratic candidates, who seem to be lost in the masses of registration cards.
Just last week, Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., stepped out of this wading pool of presidential hopefuls, saying he "cannot be elected president of the United States."
Nice move Bob: Peacing on out before the hairy gets hairier.
Perhaps the most classic example of the dissension in the political ranks is the candidacy of Democrat-but-not-really retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who was tardy in entering the presidential race about a month ago. Adorned with the elusive four-star title and a brief stint in the 1970s as a professor of economics at the United States Military Academy at West Point under his military-glorifying belt, Clark doesn't exactly seem to be the number one fan of his fellow Democratic hopefuls.
What it all amounts to, it appears, is fear.
Major Democratic candidates John Edwards, Joseph Lieberman and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean are afraid of Clark's seemingly idealistic platforms on tax cuts, which draw the support of voters, especially those of median income. Their biggest problem is Clark, a registered Independent, isn't a "real" Democrat and shouldn't bear the name of one because he admitted to committing the murderous and sacrilegious task of voting for Nixon and Reagan, outside of his self-claimed Democratic party lines.
Clark has been criticized for giving praise to the Bush administration at a Republican fundraiser in Arkansas in 2001. However, the general admits he is new to the Democratic party, although he hasn't gotten around to actually registering as a Democrat yet.
We weren't born political. It is not wrong to change party affiliation, but this election has made it somewhat taboo. The crux of the issue is that General Clark, having come from mixed party lines, is a presidential candidate who has bipartisan appeal, which could be the key. Staunch Democrats don't, and they don't like it.
But what about California, whose gubernatorial candidates weren't exactly the cream of the political crop, to say the least? Have we already forgotten its adoration of Arnold Schwarzenegger who, although he is a registered Republican, holds fairly liberal issues on abortion and gun control? Does that make him any less Republican than Tom McClintock? No. Political freedom should be defined as the ability to affiliate with a party while having the ability to shy away from rigid party lines to vote for issues, regardless of who and which party they come from.
What seems to be going on in the race for president is a gritty, dirty mess of politician-to politician, Democrat-to-Democrat slander. The election has turned into a civil war: Gen. Wesley Clark v. the Democrats - using Clark's hazy party affiliation as a scapegoat for their fear of him and his popularity among many groups of people.
In all honesty, the other Democratic presidential candidates such as former candidate Bob Graham are probably humiliated, and with good reason. Clark, in his first two weeks in the presidential campaign, raised 3.5 million dollars, averaging enough contribution funds to buy one moderately-priced house every day. Clark is also singled out because he has limited political experience compared to the other candidates - and he's still raking in the funds. I would be sore too.
The other Democratic candidates also seem to fear Clark's ideological views because to a crowd of avid supporters, the promises are first and foremost, without a second thought to the notion their venerated candidate's plans for the future may be somewhat far-fetched. They're incensed, maybe even anxious about the late-entering general's popularity.
It's an election. It's a competition. Truthfully, what it boils down to is an act to see who can flash the brightest smile before the drama-hungry cameras and who can enchant, sway and influence disillusioned voters so hyped by the rallies, the confetti and the balloons.
But it's also a backlash from Democratic candidates such as Kerry, Dean and Edwards, to name a few, against their opponent-turned-arched rival Clark. The Democratic candidates feel they have the ace in this deck of political cards because they are the omniscient "registered" Democrats and can legitimately bear their party's title, while Clark is a self-proclaimed Democrat. The general said, "It's not about how long you've been in the party. It's about what you believe."
Presidential candidates, and maybe Americans, are trapped between the rigid boundaries of party titles. It is not a crime to (occasionally) agree with someone from an opposing political party. It seems we are being sucked into the name game when it comes to elections, voting for candidates based on their party affiliations and who they are, rather than their platforms.
We see the party affiliation printed next to the candidate's name. But that's all it is: print. Maybe I'm suffering from college-student naiveté - because I frequently am - but it seems the reason for voting for a candidate should be based on the belief and trust he or she will provide the country with what it needs, not because his or her name has the party affiliation that matches the voter's behind it.
Maybe Clark is somewhat radical in declaring himself a Democratic candidate while being registered as an Independent, and having backed Republicans in the past. But what it's going to come down to now is for voters to trust their candidates, regardless of their party history, will provide for a better tomorrow. Voters will have to ignore the bitter tastes they get in their mouths at the reminder that a political candidate had the courage to step outside of his party lines and then admit it.
Flora Rhim is a Douglass College junior majoring in journalism and criminal justice. Her column, "Double Entendre," appears on alternating Mondays.
Be the first to comment on this article!