As I sat in the chapel holding a pink sheet of paper listing the names of everyone in my form, I listened to my classmates seated around me. I heard them laugh as they nominated people for student council president because they would be “so hilarious” or simply because they were their friends. Reflecting on the overly personal election process taking place around me, my mind eventually turned to the current, national primaries.
The current group of presidential candidates covers the entire political spectrum, from Mike Huckabee to Dennis Kucinich. The majority of candidates have unique views, but a few share similar platforms, specifically Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. How will independent and democratic voters choose between Clinton and Obama? Will they pick the candidate who they believe is more qualified for the job, or the one whom they would rather have over for dinner?
Both candidates believe that every American has the right to healthcare and promise to lower healthcare costs. Both are firmly opposed to the privatization of social security. Clinton says “Social Security is the single greatest domestic program in our history;” Obama says “Social Security is one of the most important government programs ever created.” Both promise the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. To boost the economy, Clinton and Obama both promise to create more high-wage jobs and invest more money in the public education system to ensure that Americans can prosper in the global market. But although their platforms are very similar, Obama is often referred to as a “utopist” while Clinton is seen as being too robotic.
Obama was expected to win the New Hampshire primaries, having just come out on top in the Iowa caucuses, but Clinton secured the win after giving an emotional speech, during which her eyes brimmed with tears. Skeptics wonder if she was just trying to appear emotional to win over more female voters. Genuine or not, Clinton won 39% of the votes to Obama’s 37%, according to cnn.com, stating that she received the majority of women’s votes.
New Hampshire is a perfect example of voters basing their choices off of candidates’ apparent personalities. Clinton’s teary-eyed moment, intentional or not, was genius. People had thought she was too robotic, so she cried during a speech and won the New Hampshire primary. On the day of that primary, my math teacher, an avid Clinton supporter, told my class that she was in a bad mood because her instincts told her that Clinton would not win New Hampshire. Surprise! An article in The Boston Globe even attributed Clinton’s victory to “a last-minute flurry of sympathy” from voters.
The public should pay some attention to the personal qualities of Obama and Clinton, because having a strong character is important in a leader. But at the same time, people should consider which candidate would be the best in office and the best at effecting the changes that they have both spoken so much about. As Super Tuesday approaches, voters and caucus-goers should look beyond the winning personalities. Instead, they should choose the candidate that will boost America’s reputation abroad through sincerity, credibility, and sound judgement.
