With the Super Bowl behind them, Americans now turn their attentions to an equally intriguing contest: Super-Duper-Tuesday, when Democrats and Republicans battle to choose their candidates for the White House in 22 states. By Wednesday, half the delegates to their late-summer conventions will have been chosen. But, as the sports commentators would put it, there is still all to play for. In a contest that has defied predictions from the start, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama look set to slug it out for some time to come, following the withdrawal of John Edwards. For the Republicans, who began this campaign in disarray and out of favour, John McCain appears to have built up a strong head of steam. A Democratic victory is no longer a foregone conclusion.
So we have an intriguing prospect. By the end of 2008, in all probability, America will have elected a new president who is either a woman, an African-American or a man who will by then be 72. This is exciting, and there has been much dewy-eyed talk about this campaign as a mesmerising advertisement for the democratic process. Certainly, it has been more open and unpredictable than any recent contest, but it has important limitations. No candidate will reach the White House without multi-million-dollar endorsements from corporate sponsors, who expect favours in return. (This ought to put recent funding spats at Holyrood and Westminster in perspective.) This, and the sheer size and diversity of the American electorate, effectively squeezes out candidates on the left.
In addition, though there have been debates about policies, this election has been more about personalities. When it comes to presidents, Americans like them big. It has always been this way. Unfortunately, the best candidate is not necessarily the best president. Yet much hangs on this choice for all of us. The best candidate is not the one that makes the most eloquent speech or runs the most compelling television adverts but the one who can steady the wobbling American economy without betraying the sick and the poor. It will be the one who can extricate the US from its disastrous entanglement in Iraq and rehabilitate its standing in the world. And it will be the one who can turn around the American supertanker on the issue of climate change.
Barack Obama has charisma, a strong following among young and black voters and some handy endorsements, including Teddy and Caroline Kennedy, JFK's brother and daughter. However, there are real questions about whether he is experienced enough, especially when things get nasty, as they are bound to do once the Republicans get their teeth into him. Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, has bounced back from some terrible reverses, notably her botched attempt to reform healthcare and the Monica Lewinsky scandal. As the maverick who failed to secure the Republican nomination in 2000, John McCain can just as legitimately sell himself as a candidate who also represents a change from the Bush era.
Two clouds could overshadow this campaign. The "ism" that does not appear to figure in American, as opposed to British, politics is ageism. At 71 (three score years and 10, plus one), McCain is already two years older than Ronald Reagan was when he entered the White House, yet cheerfully parades his 95-year-old mother. It remains to be seen how much two other isms, sexism and racism, matter to American voters. Officially, race and gender are irrelevant; unofficially, many believe that each will count for a lot. It would be tragic if these factors, rather than competence and leadership quality, decided one of the most crucial presidential elections in American history.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article