Recently, two top-tear democratic candidates have released agendas on an important issue. Both John Edwards and Barack Obama have declared their ideas on poverty. Edwards has made direct reference to Robert F. Kennedy’s crusade against poverty, obviously hoping to imply comparisons from old RFK supporters and draw a crowd of younger American’s who have grown to know the Kennedy story. Obama’s plan has similarities to Edwards’s. The amount of detail these top candidates are already employing indicates the breakneck pace that has been set for this campaign. However, such speed also places pressure on other candidates to do the same as Edwards and Obama already have. No doubt poverty is a key in the democratic arsenal that will be used to attempt exposure of conservative candidates. There are unintended consequences of such actions though, and democratic candidates need to be wary of who exactly they will expose.

The media has identified in quick fashion who they will support for their nomination of president. There are nearly two dozen candidates, but less than ten are paid any meaningful attention by the media. Hilary Clinton is perhaps the most darling of the media’s favorites. Clinton has been tagged as the person who can and will fix the country’s many problems. Television is saturated with experts who proclaim that Hilary is full of uniting brilliance. While many have written her off because of her general attitude, which is often less than appealing, Hilary remains popular. This likely has a lot to do with the fact that she is relying on groups of people who are less informed about general politics than the traditional voter. This is not to say that every Hilary supporter is ignorant or unaware. However, it is to say that Hilary knows she likely cannot win a general election if she depends on the “traditional” crowd exclusively.
While a nontraditional base can lend her a great deal of support, she will still be expected to answer the same questions as every other candidate, or she should be. Obama’s and Edwards’s poverty initiatives not only place pressure on republican candidates to produce ideas of their own, it equally insists that all other candidates do the same. After all, the idea is for one member of each party to shine above all others. If Hilary emerges as a front runner, she will have to answer the poverty question and a host of other equally tough questions in order to win enough votes for victory. Actually doing this, along with other complications, may hinder the type of aggressive progress the Clinton campaign is seeking.
Clinton has yet to release any initiatives such as the ones Obama and Edwards have, or even a health care plan, which Rudy Giuliani as made mention of. In fact, such questions rarely seem to find their way to her, which leaves her with no real reason to answer them. In public appearances, she is quick to talk about what America needs, but rarely explains how she intends to accomplish such lofty feats. Is she incapable of devising a reasonable plan on poverty, health care, or anything? With all the resources available to her, one would think not, but perhaps she is afraid of her own ideas. It is no secret that Clinton has often associated herself with known members of the socialist movement. Nearly everyone knows, and she can hardly be an exception, that America, at its heart, is a conservative nation. Some people may believe in welfare, or even some form of socialist health care, but nearly everyone in America generally wants the government out of their lives. Hilary knows that her theories of common good don’t sit well with the majority of people who want personal freedom. Her way of dealing with this problem is to leave the major issues alone and offer only generic solutions with no detail.
It isn’t just Hilary’s lack of detail that leaves her less than desirable to a large portion of the mainstream. Her overall personality can often be overbearing and appear harsh. For someone who claims to have the ability to win the votes of women, appearing as if you are the ultimate figure of macho will hardly place a woman’s vote in your basket. There isn’t anyone who truly desires someone who is soft spoken and weak willed in the White House, but few people really want to see a full-grown woman standing before a crowd preaching to them, in a slightly lower than natural tone of voice, about what the American people need. Indeed, it seems that Clinton has it backwards. The presidential election is an opportunity for the people of this nation to select what it is they want in their leader. It is up to each candidate to prove that they will give to the people what they desire. Hilary, with all her talk of the common good, appears to be telling anyone who listens, what America needs, not how to get what it wants. The effect is less than pleasing.
Many Americans really aren’t sure what to expect of Hilary. Will her administration be similar to her husband’s? Will it be original and full of a new cast of officials? No one is entirely sure. There is another question though. Does America really want someone in the White House who was so closed to the scandals of the Bill Clinton administration? President Clinton’s personal problems aside, his administration did not run like a well oiled machine. His time in office was marked with a number of attacks on American property, and there is serious doubt about the honesty and integrity of some who worked for him. These people haven’t disappeared, and they certainly have made themselves available for the second President Clinton to use. Does America really want to return to that period of history, which was not so long ago?
Honesty, or lack of it, is something Clinton is having a great deal of trouble hiding. She has changed her stance on the Iraq War several times and refuses to admit that she supported the war at its start. The fact that she will not admit her past record reflects a much larger meaning. Hilary Clinton is afraid of admitting she made a mistake. While other democratic candidates can honestly say they never supported the war, or it was a mistake to support it, Hilary continues to hope that if she makes no mention of her support, maybe everyone will forget about it. Hilary has always been a loud supporter of rape victims. She has worked extensively to offer these victims help. However, when recently asked about rape charges once leveled against her husband, Hilary claimed to know nothing of them. Certainly Hilary can realize that her reaction will do nothing to win support from the sizeable group seeking someone to support women’s rights.
If it is true that the Democratic Party has thrown much of their support toward Hilary, or the media has made her their top favorite, then she needs to start competing. She needs to offer the people something of substance. Hilary must promise America that she will do what the people want done, not what she wants. There is a lot to be done in America today, and the next leader needs an incredible amount of integrity. If Hilary’s campaign does not change, and there is no sign it will, then integrity likely cannot be found in Mrs. Clinton.