RSS
A likable candidate
I made a New Year's resolution in January to become better informed about national politics in this presidential election year. I haven't done much about it though.
I have a tendency, as I believe is the case with many voters, to form political opinions based on who I like or don't like. And those preferences have more to do with the sound of a person's voice or body language than with his or her track record.
Hillary Clinton is the ultimate example. One of the reporters in the newsroom was saying last night during Super Tuesday hype that no one he knows "likes" Clinton, yet she remains ahead in the polls and in the race for delegates.
Barack Obama has a higher "likable" factor, but the Internet-rumor crowd is fond of saying he is hiding something.
Here's where I feel guilty about the limited knowledge I have of the candidates' backgrounds and positions. I find myself favoring Obama because I don't like the sound of Clinton's voice. Or, if it's Obama and John McCain, I think McCain gets points for not looking emaciated.
All of which I believe makes me a bad citizen.
But take a step back ... if the person this nation elects as president is to represent us in the world and to accomplish results in Washington, don't we want that person to project confidence and to be well, "likable?"
In the wake of Super Tuesday, it appears that the Democrats are still in a race to determine their candidate, and the Republicans have a front-runner, but he's not yet a certain nominee.
It's an interesting year. I resolve, again, to become better informed and make wise choices.
I just hope that come November, I like the winner.
I have a tendency, as I believe is the case with many voters, to form political opinions based on who I like or don't like. And those preferences have more to do with the sound of a person's voice or body language than with his or her track record.
Hillary Clinton is the ultimate example. One of the reporters in the newsroom was saying last night during Super Tuesday hype that no one he knows "likes" Clinton, yet she remains ahead in the polls and in the race for delegates.
Barack Obama has a higher "likable" factor, but the Internet-rumor crowd is fond of saying he is hiding something.
Here's where I feel guilty about the limited knowledge I have of the candidates' backgrounds and positions. I find myself favoring Obama because I don't like the sound of Clinton's voice. Or, if it's Obama and John McCain, I think McCain gets points for not looking emaciated.
All of which I believe makes me a bad citizen.
But take a step back ... if the person this nation elects as president is to represent us in the world and to accomplish results in Washington, don't we want that person to project confidence and to be well, "likable?"
In the wake of Super Tuesday, it appears that the Democrats are still in a race to determine their candidate, and the Republicans have a front-runner, but he's not yet a certain nominee.
It's an interesting year. I resolve, again, to become better informed and make wise choices.
I just hope that come November, I like the winner.
Labels: Barack Obama, candidates, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, likable candidate
posted by Nancy March at
12:06 PM
3 Comments:
I think way too many people voted for George Bush because he seemed more "likeable" than then-wooden Al Gore.
Bush seemed friendlier, folksier, more like a regular guy.
What they got was an ignorant idiot.
In regards to anonymous' comment, that's kinda true. But that doesn't mean every likable person is an ignorant idiot. W. was likable, but Obama is more than that. He seems genuine to me, and that is not something you get with many candidates. And while Al Gore is entirely likable these days, does it not seem like a few of his hinges are loose? I bet he could have disrupted things as much as Bush. Electing presidents is really more like "choose your poison" than "name your hero"
ugg bootsugg bootsugg boots
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home