2008 Woodie Awards
Unknown candidates may be best options for 2008 presidential race
Ian Parker '10
Issue date: 2/28/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 2 next >
The upcoming presidential election should be one of the most interesting in many years; for the first time since 1928, there is no incumbent and no Vice President is in the running. Accordingly, many people from both parties have good chances to become their party's nominee. This election is historic in another way; never before has there been such choice in the depth of possible candidates to support. Given this situation, politicians of all stripes should find their way to the White House just a little bit easier. If, that is, voters can actually remember their names.
Former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack has just dropped out of his race for president. The reason he gave was because he had not been able to raise nearly as much money as he needed to mount a realistic campaign. In the world of politics, fundraising is based upon how well-known a candidate is. Vilsack's problem was that, like most other candidates in the race, a huge majority of Americans had never even heard of him. This problem extends to even some of the most-qualified people running. Ever heard of Mike Huckabee? Most people haven't, and yet he was a spectacularly successful Republican governor of Arkansas and one of the few candidates who can bring executive experience with him to the presidency. Joe Biden? More blank looks, and yet he is perhaps the most knowledgeable Democratic candidate in foreign affairs, a critical aspect of the presidency.
By focusing on only the most visible and well-known candidates, voters rob themselves of the chance to truly have a choice in the party primaries. The presidential short-lists inspire a "least bad" type of voting that takes the pleasure and the debate out of contests and creates conditions where the candidate that ultimately wins is forced to be as bland as possible. It destroys what this country is based on - the chance for everyone, no matter their background, to pursue their dream. To say that there is only room for the richest, the most famous, the most privileged candidates is to deny a smaller candidate's right to be considered. The failure to do even a little research into the people behind the campaigns constitutes that denial, and it is a failure we are all responsible for.
Former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack has just dropped out of his race for president. The reason he gave was because he had not been able to raise nearly as much money as he needed to mount a realistic campaign. In the world of politics, fundraising is based upon how well-known a candidate is. Vilsack's problem was that, like most other candidates in the race, a huge majority of Americans had never even heard of him. This problem extends to even some of the most-qualified people running. Ever heard of Mike Huckabee? Most people haven't, and yet he was a spectacularly successful Republican governor of Arkansas and one of the few candidates who can bring executive experience with him to the presidency. Joe Biden? More blank looks, and yet he is perhaps the most knowledgeable Democratic candidate in foreign affairs, a critical aspect of the presidency.
By focusing on only the most visible and well-known candidates, voters rob themselves of the chance to truly have a choice in the party primaries. The presidential short-lists inspire a "least bad" type of voting that takes the pleasure and the debate out of contests and creates conditions where the candidate that ultimately wins is forced to be as bland as possible. It destroys what this country is based on - the chance for everyone, no matter their background, to pursue their dream. To say that there is only room for the richest, the most famous, the most privileged candidates is to deny a smaller candidate's right to be considered. The failure to do even a little research into the people behind the campaigns constitutes that denial, and it is a failure we are all responsible for.
Be the first to comment on this story