Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton are both potential presidential candidates representing the views of the Democratic Party. The diversity of both these candidates combined with the controversial issues encircling the election make this one of the most cruc
Michael Gillott
February 13, 2008
Poli 361
Narrative Paper
America is a country of contradiction. The innovative and modern in its western culture fails to coincide with the traditional and steady election process and mentality of the American majority. Through 216 years as a recognized nation and numerous strides in racial and ethnic equality, not one commander-in-chief has emerged as a shift from the conventional white-male standard; until now. Two candidates, one of them a woman, one a black male, and both democrats, are challenging both terms, white and male, in the 2008 election. Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton are both potential presidential candidates representing the views of the Democratic Party. The diversity of both these candidates combined with the controversial issues encircling the election make this one of the most crucial ballots of our time. With both already straying from the norm, it is safe to say that the more conservative candidate out of the two will end up taking the democratic candidacy. Although Obama’s campaign and ideals hold the support of both the youth and black community, Hilary Clinton’s more orthodox policies and structure makes her a more likely choice, for conservatives, in the 2008 election.
While Obama fronts a neo-political campaign and a popular newness, his ideals may be too turbulent and divergent from the traditions of the United States. It is clear that racism and prejudice in America have clearly diminished, however this doesn’t mean that a black man at the head of the government is so easily comprehensible. As this alone is sad but realistically challenging for many to overlook, the addition of a somewhat novel string of policies may be too much for one election. The fact of the matter is America can only handle so much change at a time. Whether or not Obama’s shift in policies is for better or for worse is not the question; it is how the public will react to these prospective changes that will shape the outcome of the election. Obama has preached a newfound relationship within the government, one that will eliminate the hindering distinction between red states and blue states. “…The reason I'm running in this race is because I believe we have to bring in independents and, yes, Republicans into a conversation about a progressive, commonsense agenda for change” (www.govote.com). This instability in sticking with his own party was discomforting for many democrats and republicans alike to hear. A loose candidate is not someone who democrats would like to have at the forefront representing their party. Even more alarming for democrat conservatives, was Obama’s stance on foreign enemies. For quite some time it has been our countries policy to shut out both terrorist and communist leaders of other nations and sects. Obama announced an alteration in that policy when he argued, “A strong country and a strong president are not afraid to talk to their enemies” (Obama 2007). Although possibly a brilliant notion, this drastic change in a traditional American ideal may again be too atypical and bold for the American people. Obama basically advocated reaching out to leaders such as Fidel Castro, startling other politicians. After this statement Obama received much criticism from the other nominees, contesting that Obama is both “naïve” and “irresponsible”. These traits were enforced by his inexperience. Barack Obama has been a US senator for the state of Illinois for a mere two years, which many feel is short of the sufficient amount of experience needed to give people faith in a candidate.
