After reading the packet on the candidates for presidency, I have come to the conclusion that I am going to be rooting for Clark for president, and Edwards for vice-president. While I personally like Edwards’ national focus (esp. his aim at public school reform), he has no mention of international policy. I think that it’s very important for a president to have an exceptionally extensive knowledge of international affairs, as we have all learned from President Bush (i.e. sending a man who didn’t speak Chinese to negotiate with the Chinese government). Clark is the only candidate (Democratic or Republican) who immediately recognizes the importance of international affairs along with national aims. Edwards also, along with all of the other Democratic nominees, also wants to invest in public-school reform. Edwards specifically wants to raise teachers’ salaries, which I think is a lot more practical than, say, Gephardt’s Teacher Corps program. Gephardt’s program is asking people to give up 5 years of their life after they get their degrees. In five years, they have no experience to go and get a job of their own, making them (again) underqualified. It’s a lose-lose situation; you’re putting people into a job they didn’t choose, and you’re forcing them to stay in a job they don’t like because they have no other way to make money. While Gephardt insists that teachers would be “held to government standards”, it doesn’t change the fact that they don’t WANT to teach, and a teacher that doesn’t like to teach is, well, pointless. While Clark has no governmental experience, he has done more to show his devotion to the nation, and has done more for the country already than some of the other candidates, such as Al Sharpton.
Ah yes, the Reverend Al Sharpton. I must question the sagacity of a man, who running for President of a nation that prides itself on religious diversity, would attach the word “Reverend” to his name. Not only is he singling himself out, but he is also reflecting onto the voters the same dark cloud that hung over Kennedy’s campaign. People know that religion would be important to a reverend, and consequently think that he might let the Bible (or rather his interpretation of it, thank you Mr. Degler) influence his decisions. Haha, I was going to go into Mosely-Braun’s ridiculous “focuses” from here, but she dropped out!
Back to Clark. Part of the reason that makes him such a great candidate is that he appeals to a wide variety of people. He’s a war hero, so the Republicans like him. He’s a Democrat, so the Democrats like him. He’s into international affairs, but is pushing for public school reform as well. He was opposed to the “false pretenses” the war on Iraq was launched (which the Democrats love), but he still says that the US can’t pull out of Iraq until they help the country get back on its feet, which is music to the Republicans’ ears. It’s interesting that even though he is so bipolar in his interests and goals, he doesn’t contradict himself. He doesn’t oppose the war one minute and support it the next. He doesn’t say that his main focus is international affairs, but then say that he wants to concentrate on school reform. He wants to work equally as hard on both of them. Face it; Clark is just a good guy.