Candidate Assessment

When assessing the current presidential candidates there seems to be a lot of similarities. But then again I suppose one could say that about any presidential elections. For this week we were asked to assess one of the candidates from each party, based on the factors of how electable they are, what kind of image they convey, and which activists seem strategic and which seem less strategic.

When looking at Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards, you see someone who is very electable. In fact out of the top three democratic candidates he looks and sounds like the most typical option. He has everything from looks and charisma to a solid platform to run on, so to many observers he is your basic politician. Based solely on the way he looks, sounds, and acts, I would say that he is the most electable candidate the democrats have.

When looking at the image Edwards puts out there, I personally felt it was a little cheesy, but most politicians tend to be so it’s a factor you learn to look past. When going to John Edwards official website you are greeted with a large picture of Edwards with his family. This picture looks like your typical department store family photo taken to send to family members in a Christmas card. But that’s all part of the image Edwards wants to convey. He wants to seem like the guy next door. The run of the mill father and husband. That is his image. The nice, caring family man here to change the country. I’m not saying this is a bad image, in many ways it’s a good image. This country could use a leader who cares and wants to genuinely change the country for the better. But all the emphasis on family and the pictures and everything do seem a bit overboard and as I said a tad cheesy.

Some portions of the Edwards campaign do feel strategic, but overall I think that he truly does care about the issues he talks about the most. On his website he has a to-do list which lists the main issues he wants to tackle if elected. On the list are global warming, Iraq, health care, and jobs and poverty. Most of these issues I feel are not strategy, but issues he cares a lot about. He has been a strong advocate for getting out of Iraq for a long time now, and he really seems to believe what he says. Same goes for jobs and poverty. More than any other candidate he truly seems to want to help people in poverty and in need. As far as global warming, that feels more like strategy. Global warming seems to be one of those bandwagon issues that candidates are jumping on because Al Gore made it cool. It feels like strategy and like he is attempting to be part of the hip global warming crowd.

As far as the republicans go, candidate Fred Thompson is an interesting man. On the matter of electability I’m not quite sure what to make of him. He is a former senator and actor, but he just doesn’t seem to have the “presidential” vibe. Despite Schwarzenegger winning governor in California and Jesse Ventura’s victory in Minnesota a few years ago, the majority of the country doesn’t seem ready to embrace Hollywood as it’s leaders. He may have been a senator, but more people are going to see him as “that guy from Law and Order”.

Thompson’s image isn’t very clear. When visiting his official website everything is labeled with “Fred” in front of it. Like “Friends of Fred” and Fred this and Fred that. It seems like they are trying to make him this guy that you have known all your life, or the fun grandpa who brings you presents when you visit. Despite being an actor Thompson lacks charisma and therefore his public image doesn’t seem to fit.

As far Thomson’s issues seeming strategic or not, I do not believe they are. While every politician has strategy involved in what issues they talk about, the same holds true for Thompson, but I feel that for the most part he really believes in what he says.