AMERICANS DON̢۪T VOTE FOR CANDIDATES. Americans vote against candidates.
Unfortunately, the news media has reported little of this cynicism. Instead, headlines are awash with the idea that, for once, Americans might have something positive to look forward to this Election Day. A candidate they̢۪re excited about.
History proves the networks wrong. Our post-Watergate age of high scandal and reality television has no place for optimism. We have no business cashing in the idea that a vote really makes that much of a difference, or that it could do anything but slow our country̢۪s inevitable spiral to oblivion.
As such, I thought I’d do my readers the service of ranking the candidates in terms of how little you could trust them. Policy has no place in this ranking — only how not-respectable they are, and how dishonest.
Ranking the Democrats by sleaze-tacity isn̢۪t quite as fun as ranking the Republicans, but the Democratic sleaze ranking is all the more relevant because the policy differences are so minute. Among the three still running, two are still viable and only one is likable.
I̢۪ll let you guess which is which.
1. Hillary Clinton. She’s more or less stable in her philosophies — unless you count her initial support for the Iraq War and her current campaign against it — so there isn’t much to count against her on a pure policy point of view.
Forgetting for a moment that she̢۪s an android with a broken personality algorithm, the Clinton campaign represents the most violently reprehensible Democrat in what was once a crowded field of surprisingly qualified-if-unelectable candidates.
Does the Whitewater ring any bells? The best shot the Republicans have to win the election is to re-register as a Democrat and vote Clinton in the primary. She has more political baggage than a political-baggage-carrying jumbo jet full of political baggage.
That̢۪s a lot of political baggage. And no, that isn̢۪t a sexist joke. Give me a break.
2. Barack Obama. This Obama guy might be more sleazy than Clinton. Trouble is, he hasn̢۪t had much time to prove himself, except by talking so prettily.
The Clinton campaign had launched a volley of attacks not too long ago that seem to have connected Obama to a Chicago slumlord. If this pans out, he̢۪ll almost have caught up to Clinton on the Sleaze-o-meter, but not quite.
Clinton launched the attack, after all.
He̢۪s relatively new on the national scene, so this campaign is the official Obama testing ground. His campaign is pretty overzealous in attacks, but this hardly distinguishes him from Clinton.
For now he has the benefit of the doubt, but not so much that he rates even lower on the Sleaze-o-meter.
3. John Edwards. Edwards dropped out of the race last Tuesday. Too bad for him — the biggest thing I had against him was his $400 haircut.
4. Mike Gravel. The lesser-known the candidate, the less scrutiny they face. Such is the case with longshot Gravel, a former Alaskan senator who held office during the Nixon years.
He stands out. Of course, he̢۪s also a 77-year-old man who is outright crazy, by all appearances to the untrained eye.
I̢۪m not sure where to rank this guy, but he speaks out against the Iraq War quite vociferously. That probably means he̢۪s sane. Sanity, unfortunately, has nothing to do with sleaziness.
The pertinent question: Does anyone know how much Gravel paid for his haircut?
Benjamin Baxter • Feb 5, 2008 at 4:57 pm
The Collegian Staff Comment
Future Squirrel Stuffer
I agree, but I had limited understanding and even less space on how exactly her scandals parsed, so I filed her numerous scandals under “political baggage.”
I figured it was my responsibility to at least try to give equal weight to the allegations of Obama sleaze.
Benjamin Baxter • Feb 5, 2008 at 11:57 pm
The Collegian Staff Comment
Future Squirrel Stuffer
I agree, but I had limited understanding and even less space on how exactly her scandals parsed, so I filed her numerous scandals under “political baggage.”
I figured it was my responsibility to at least try to give equal weight to the allegations of Obama sleaze.
gm • Feb 4, 2008 at 10:17 am
Actually it was a Chicago paper that broke the Obama story and the Clinton campaign exploited it. It doesn’t seem to be a story that rises to anything approaching Clintonian sleaze levels however and don’t forget the picture of a smiling Hillary with the same slumlord. Furthermore, how can one such controversy almost equal all the Clinton antics? You mention Whitewater. How about Travelgate while First Lady? Forget the accusation that the entire Lewinsky affair was concocted as part of a vast right-wing conspiracy when she knew what Bill had done? (and had done several times before) Bill’s latest dealings that are netting his foundation over 100 million dollars in exchange for supporting a tyrant? Obama has a long ways to go in this regard to catch up with the Clintons.
His campaign has at time been overzealous, but again can’t touch the Clintons. The attacks on Obama’s comments about Reagan and Republicans in the 90’s are an insult to everyones intelligence and pure hypocrisy to those of us who recall Bill singing Reagan’s praises in 92. The way Bill and Hill tried to marginalize Obama as a black candidate angered me and apparently alot of other people like nothing else I’ve heard so far this campaign season. More importantly, it reveals Clinton’s real attitudes about race. I’m not arguing that Obama is a saint, just that he is a rank amateur when competing with the Clintons in the sleaze arena.
gm • Feb 4, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Actually it was a Chicago paper that broke the Obama story and the Clinton campaign exploited it. It doesn’t seem to be a story that rises to anything approaching Clintonian sleaze levels however and don’t forget the picture of a smiling Hillary with the same slumlord. Furthermore, how can one such controversy almost equal all the Clinton antics? You mention Whitewater. How about Travelgate while First Lady? Forget the accusation that the entire Lewinsky affair was concocted as part of a vast right-wing conspiracy when she knew what Bill had done? (and had done several times before) Bill’s latest dealings that are netting his foundation over 100 million dollars in exchange for supporting a tyrant? Obama has a long ways to go in this regard to catch up with the Clintons.
His campaign has at time been overzealous, but again can’t touch the Clintons. The attacks on Obama’s comments about Reagan and Republicans in the 90’s are an insult to everyones intelligence and pure hypocrisy to those of us who recall Bill singing Reagan’s praises in 92. The way Bill and Hill tried to marginalize Obama as a black candidate angered me and apparently alot of other people like nothing else I’ve heard so far this campaign season. More importantly, it reveals Clinton’s real attitudes about race. I’m not arguing that Obama is a saint, just that he is a rank amateur when competing with the Clintons in the sleaze arena.