(Originally posted on Blogspot on November 4, 2008)
Sitting here watching the final moments of the campaign on CNN, I’m wondering how much I’ve actually learned about the candidates over the last 21 months–rather, how much I’ve learned about how good they will be as the next U.S. President.
Too much of the U.S. media coverage has been sappy and American-Idol-ish. Both campaigns have claimed to bring “change”, “hope”, and “unity”.
Watching the Doha Debates on the BBC was a refreshing break from this fuzzy rhetoric: one motion + two sides –> one clear and focused debate. I admit, Townhall.com has some articles that get to the point and hit issues directly. NYTimes also has its gems at times.
A strong part of me wishes that the campaign culture and media culture overall would have been more hard-hitting on these key issues, as textbook debates are designed to be. However, a deeper part of me believes that even if the discussion were more raw, I would still not be appropriately informed to choose the next U.S. President.
What is the right criteria with which one should judge a candidate? Ultimately I believe most humans care about what is happening to their safety and to the safety of those most close to them. It leads me to ask: should we elect a President primarily on how s/he will favorably protect our safety and those of our loved ones? Especially a President responsible for the safety of approximately 300 million Americans and of countless others across the world?
You may feel that you know the candidates’ records, campaign promises, and strength of character, but really, who knows for sure how well they will actually perform in the White House?
Ironically, all you can do now is vote and “hope” that the next President will do a respectable job…especially if you have 7924 miles (12752 km) and a really big ocean between you and Washington D.C.