Mud-Slinging With a Purpose

We are finally starting to get down to the nitty gritty of the election season and it looks more and more likely that the candidates on the main part of the ticket for the fall are going to be John McCain and Barrack Obama. In recent days both candidates have been surging forward and their nearest competitors are struggling to keep pace. That being said, it's no wonder that so much mud-slinging and rumor mongering is beginning to abound. Last night on the debate between Obama and Hillary Clinton (held in Texas where the next major primaries are to be held) Clinton perverted Obama's campaign slogan and declared that Obama stood for "Change You Can Xerox". This was a slight intended to hint at the fact that Obama had been accused (and admitted) to using portions of a speech from fellow congressman Duval Patrick.

In the way things usually work in politics, it was probably a milder form of mud-slinging but it's mud-slinging nonetheless. It's relatively minor when looking at the mud being thrown John McCain's way. The New York Times recently reported that McCain had previously had inappropriate relations (read having an illicit affair) with a congressional lobbyist. The reason this is of more significance (to some anyways) is the fact that McCain ran his last campaign for the presidency on a stance of looking to end the power of lobbyists in Washington. What this scandal hopes to reveal is that no only is McCain 'in bed' with lobbyists (figuratively and quite possibly literally) but that he is not going to be able to hold up the promise of ending the reign of lobbyists in congress.

Still, no matter who you support or don't support, are these really issues that will make or break these candidates? As I recall, Bill Clinton was racked with scandal after scandal the first time he ran. It seemed that more than handling how he would handle the presidency, Clinton was spending most of his time shooting down accusations of illicit affairs. But is this perhaps what made him likeable in the first place? Think about it. The presidency has some sort of mystique linked to it. It's a powerful position that grants the bearer of the position, a great deal of power. That being the case, do the people want someone in there who is truly benevolent or do you think they would prefer someone who is more likeable. I say likeable because I feel that other than a few exceptions, most of our recent presidents were probably elected because they were 'more likeable' than their opponents.

Even this denial by McCain yesterday to ever having an affair seemed a bit... canned to me. It seemed as if he was going through the emotions of making his denial. Almost as if he was expecting the question. And perhaps he was. Perhaps this 'revelation' of a story was meant to be nothing more than a way to get word out that John McCain isn't so unlike the rest of us. Plus for the Republicans, it is also a way to prove that McCain isn't gay. The party was caught off-guard with the summer shenanigans of Larry Craig last year and for a party (and Craig in particular) that was seen as one that cracks down on gay issues, it is important for them to maintain that solidarity isn't it? They want a candidate that exudes heterosexuality and by McCain being accused of having an affair (most importantly with a woman) there is only good feelings to be felt by all in the party.

Call it a case of mass cynicism but lately that's how I feel a lot of political issues have become, nothing more than a reason to prove to the public at large that "hey! I'm just like you!" but that can either backfire or serve to aid a candidate. It's a fine line. I'm personally of the opinion that lots of people were turned off by Al Gore back in 2000 due to his condescending tone towards George W. Bush during their debates. It was clear that Gore was a smart man but he came off as over smart and lots of people seemed to relate more to Bush. Rather than being a super genius as Gore tried to portray himself, Bush played up his sort of "aw shucks" appeal and it won him many supporters, many of whom still side with him through thick and thin and it's an approach that worked. So perhaps McCain coming forward this way was a set up and perhaps Obama being accused of plagarism is a set up too. Most college students will admit to cheating at one time or another and why should they feel bad, presidential candidates are doing it too aren't they?