A Closer Look at the Candidates - Part 1: The Democrats

(clockwise from top: Edwards, Mccain, Richardson, Biden, Brownback, Giuliani, Romney, Obama, Clinton)     A while back I took an early look at the upcoming presidential race, concluding in all generality that Barack Obama and Rudy Giuliani would end up battling it out next year for the presidency. However, the race has been fleshed out a great deal in the past two months, and so I decided that it was time to take an in-depth look at all the significant candidates. I'll be doing so in a two-part series of columns, the first of which will analyze my own party; the Democrats. Don't expect a strict objective report on these candidates either, because I will be interjecting my personal opinion and thoughts. On we go. (P.S. I devoted an entire column to my desire for Al Gore to run, so don't expect any mention of him here. I may, however, write a separate blog pertaining to Al Gore's potential candidacy later on.)     First up is Hillary - the golden child of this election. She has the name recognition, the people behind her, and the money needed to win this election. And that's the problem. Everyone knew Hillary would one day be running for president fifteen years ago. Now that she's finally doing it, people are just handing her the election on a silver platter because she's expected to win. Might as well get behind Hillary, she's going to win anyway - that's the attitude.     Well no, actually. I simply cannot vote for Hillary, no matter how much I want to see the social progression of a woman president. Senator Clinton is pro-drug war, pro-Iraq, and remains far too conservative on several key issues. That makes her a three-time loser in my book. I also cannot fathom how she is going to make it through a liberal primary, with the state of public opinion as is, and come out on top when her stance on Iraq remains that it was not a mistake. Her recent comments, coupled with her 'you're either with me or against me' attitude, have dropped her numbers in the polls, and Barack Obama has soared ahead to become the front-runner.     What about Barack Obama? Does he have the experience to be president? It seems to be the question on everyone's mind these days. The answer is simple, really. Yes and no. Is he qualified enough to be our president in my estimation? No. Is he more qualified than several presidents were at their time of election, including Bush? You bet ya. Obama technically, in historical reference, has what it takes to be president. But I'm still not sold. Where is the substance to his campaign? I know it's early and he's still revealing himself to the American public, but let's get to it.     Obama does have the right attitude, however. He wants to change the nature of politics, its dirty games and public attacks. This sounds great on paper, or in a speech, but I don't think it works in practice. Barack is going to have to step up to the mic, have some balls, and tell his Republican opponents that they are wrong. Not only are they wrong, but they're idiots. A strong politician, left or right, knows that that is what it takes to win, and they know how to do it well. Barack hasn't shown me he can do that yet, and until he does I won't be casting my ballot in his favor.     Lastly, and this is going to be offensive to many, but I just have to point out one other thing regarding Barack Obama. As correct as Obama comes out on most of the issues, I question the man's intelligence. He was raised by atheist parents but now considers himself to be a man of deep Christian faith, actively participating in the church. This fact boggles my mind and causes me to lose a tremendous amount of respect for the man. And if it's a political move, meaning he's really still an atheist but has to cover it up, then I respect him even less. Sorry folks, but thumbs down to Barack Obama as well.     Someone I do respect, in spite of their religious beliefs, is John Edwards. He's admitted he was wrong in voting for the war in Iraq and has already presented a full universal health care plan. Edwards is unlike Hillary in that he admits his mistake. Edwards, in an interview I saw on Meet the Press, spoke about having an open, honest relationship with the public where he always tells the truth no matter what. That alone makes me think that this guy has his head in the right place.     The only other really strong Democratic candidate out there right now is Senator Joe Biden. To me, Biden is the leading candidate on the war. He's the only one out there saying that we need to let Iraq divide itself into three countries and quit trying to impose democracy on them. But because he had an old-fart moment and called Barack Obama "clean" he's lost a lot of momentum in the race. Is this what our country has come to? When the candidate who is the most right-on about the only issue anyone cares about is disregarded because of something like that, we know that our democracy has reached a sad state of affairs.     At this stage of the game I'd say that I know I'm not voting for Hillary or Obama, but I'd like to hear more from Edwards and Biden. Edwards still needs to address drug policy reform and energy policy further before he grabs my vote, but I already approve of his stances on Iraq and health care. Biden is pro-drug war, does not have a universal health care plan, but is perhaps the stronger candidate militarily of the two. Candidates like Richardson, Kucinich, Clark, Dodd, and even Nader may end up running, but don't expect them to ever be serious contenders. As for predictions, unless Al Gore runs, I see Barack Obama pulling away by this fall. Stay tuned for Part 2 of our feature: The Republicans.