U.S. Party Politics: Whom you should not vote for and why not
The upcoming primary between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Party is certainly a testament to drastic changes in North American society: both primary candidates hold non-standard 'white-male' nominee traits. However, to vote for either candidate only because of their racial or gender identity would be just as erroneous to discard them for the same reason. In either case, superficial traits (gender or race) are being used to evaluate, which constitutes examples of both racism and sexism, even if positive for each nominee. What might be broadly considered 'ethnocentrism' is always the 'easy way out' which requires little sustained analysis, research and consideration by the voting citizenry. We may publicly proclaim our 'revolutionary' stance in publicly calling for either nominee, but in fact a responsible approach would discard race and gender altogether, and analyzing each candidate for the policies, platforms, and their respective members composing their team.
Both democratic nominees hold positive and negative records. Ms. Clinton has shown herself to be rather unbecoming competitor, alleging that the Republican candidate (John McCain) is more qualified than Mr. Obama. However, Ms. Clinton has long called for a much needed health reform in the United States, which would certainly impact Puerto Rico at some point. Mr. Obama's most positive contribution was his vote against the Iraq War, then an unpopular stance. However, he has also shown himself to be a rather populist nominee, promising much more than he can deliver. It is with some irony to note that his own rise to power completely overwhelmed the traditional Democratic power base as a result of John McCain's campaign reform laws which sought to shift greater power away from corporate interests and onto the population. In some sense, his success says more about McCain's "visionary and democratic" policies than about Obama per se. It also reminds me about a time in Minnesota state politics when Johnny Ventura, a former wresting champion, won the governorship: more power to the people may not necessarily lead in rational choices pertaining to the best candidate.
Key issues that should be in everyone's minds include: 1) energy / environment, 2) corporate outsourcing, and 3) telecommunication issues. The first pertains to well being over the long term. The second addresses the loss of jobs at home, or (metaphorically speaking) the giving away of a car's engine while expecting it to move at 100 miles per hour indefinitely. The third addresses the increasingly undemocratic tendency in the North American social life, suggesting possible changes in the future of a much more radical nature than one would typically presume given all the recent enthusiasm with Facebook and MySpace.
While the upcoming primary is a Democratic political party primary, the decision is really more one between all three candidates. (Note that McCain has typically been the lone wolf in the Republican Party. His success has taken many by surprise.) What are each nominees views on these three key issues, which impact both US and interests abroad? How do they compare? What do they speak about, and what are they not talking about? Any conclusion as to the most viable candidate without a thorough evaluation of these three issues would ultimately end up being a foolish choice, detrimental to all of those in said collectivity.
As a voting participant, you should NOT vote for Mr. Obama only because he is 'african-american', NOR should you vote for Ms. Clinton on the basis of her non-male gender, NOR should you vote for McCain because he is a "white male". Those are simply not good reasons to make a selection.