Obama has consistently tried to take race out of the equation, which is a good thing since he is actually mixed regardless of who says what about his race. At the same time there are elements out there in this country that purposely inject race into what ever they can even if an opponent is going with the actions of the individual. The problem is that the people who inject race tend to equate an attack on an individual as an attack on the race itself, which causes a tit-for-tat situation which works against both sides.
If either Obama or Clinton gets the nomination for the party, race or gender will definitely play a role in the general election due to the nature of our society and the nature of campaigning. All of the candidates have to actually take a stand and show everyone that there is no room for gender or racial bias in their campaigns otherwise it will only get worse as the campaigning goes on whether or not the candidates really want that stuff injected.
All of the candidates in both parities have all been campaigning to some degree for change, the thing is that change happens with each new administration sometimes it's for the better sometimes for worse. The thing is that going from experience a campaign just touting change is far different then providing proof that you are going to make changes if elected.
The candidates have been saying we need to change this or change that but I have not heard one iota about the specifics of how they plan to change each issue that they have been stating that needs to be changed which for them is a good thing for them but a bad thing for the voters and the electorate. It is a good thing for the candidates not to go into specifics since it can come back to haunt them if they do but at the same time it is very bad for the voters and the electorate due to a lack of information to make an informed decision on who to vote for which opens up the opportunity for here say on what the candidates mean when the talk about change.
Beyond the race and gender issues, there is a definite feel that the candidates are already acting as if this is the general election instead of the primary due to the fact that the front runners for both parties are consistently attacking each other on stuff that pertains to their own actions. The general response has been to these attacks have been the same coming from both parties with the responses being "that's not what I said or did" or "that's not what I meant" even with evidence in hand to show that is what was said or done.
That shows me that the candidates who are using those general lines are trying to run or hide their record especially if it goes against what they are currently stating they stand for in their campaign for president. Those candidates more than anyone else have to show what they actually stand for due to the fact that they don't want their own past used against them and if they don't want their past involved in the current campaign season, then they have to have the same hands off approach for the past for the other candidates that they expect the other candidates to have with them.
The one real way to show that they intend on making real changes if they get elected is to actually show that their intent to change is real and by actually showing how they intend on changing things while in office. They have to make an honest attempt to show that they are more than willing to work with both democrats and republicans in the attempt to make the changes by allowing the proposed changes to be reworked by both parties as long as the way you wish it to work remains relatively the same and can actually produce positive changes for the issues.
Change for the sake of change isn't at all a good thing, change to make a positive change is regardless of who actually comes up with the change. Real change in relation to issues that the government has to take up, comes when we actually take the time to work out how to do things in a way that promotes positive results for as many people as possible not for a select demographics.
Published by Jimmy
- Same Sex Marriages: the Legal Basis of the California Supreme Court's Decision On May 15, 2008, the court decided that same-sex marriages be accorded the same rights as opposite-sex marriages, and that not recognizing same-sex domestic relationships as "marriages" renders the California statutor...
- Transformational Leadership Times 1.7: Spousal Roles and Responsibilities on the P...This discussion considers leadership traits in a spouse of a presidential candidate in the United States. This is in keeping with the mission of leadership research which seeks to explore and discover the diverse expr...
- A Review of NewsTrust.NetOver 7000 registered members.
- Children of the World Adoption Agency on Wrongful Adoption A famous adoption agency that caters to the affuent is eventually exposed for illegall practices. This story is a true account of a wrongful adoption of one man's son. A complete over view of the adoption world as it...
Hollywood Politics: The Effect of the Stars on the 2008 Presidential Cam...A review of the effect of celebrity endorsements on the Presidential Election.
- An Analysis of the Establishment of a Democratic Press in Russia
- The Presidential Election of 1788: George Washington and a New Nation
- The Election of 1796: Adams, Jefferson, and the First Partisan Presidential Election
- George Allen's Potential Candidacy for the 2008 Presidential Election
- Election Polls Review: Why the Democratic Nominee Will Win the Presidential Election
- The Audacity of Hate: Hillary Clinton Steps Up Her Race-Baiting by Denouncing Bara...
- Review of the Book The Swing Voter in American Politics by William G. Mayer



