What's next for the US?

With the next election guaranteed to provide us with an entirely new president, vice-president and cabinet, it's starting to get to that point where predictions are being made. For the past couple of years, the heirs to the partisan thrones were H. Clinton, McCain, George Allen, John Boehner and Mitt Romney to name a few, but a few of those have already fallen off of the '08 map and some new faces are emerging. At this point, it seems as though the Democratic candidate will determine the race. If someone like Clinton runs, the nation will be polarized and will likely splinter enough to allow the Republicans a victory in '08. But I am not sure if it is really that simple. At this point in our history we have only seen White, Christian, middle-aged or older men as president or vice-president. Is this the election where we finally break the trend and elect someone with a non-WASP background? I hope so, but am not convinced that this country is progressive enough to elect something different from the status quo.



Would it really make that much of a difference to Americans if a woman or minority came to hold the title of President? The people don't seem to be affected too much by having a minority in congress or a female senator. In fact, the most populous state in the union (California) is represented by two women in the Senate and they've done a great job during their tenure. Unfortunately, we still live in a world filled with prejudice and backwards views, and a lot of people vote with their eyes and not their brains. While Hillary Clinton may be a viable candidate for president (she certainly has experience in the white house as well as the senate), many people still see her as the ballbusting wife of Bill, and that can only hurt her in a national election. As a liberal, I am not a huge fan of hers either. She has the typical wishy-washy Democrat personality, she's bold only when it helps her cause, but not when it's controversial. She has an almost Republican stance on illegal immigration, has always been overly protective (sees Grand Theft Auto the video game as a threat), and she has very maternalistic (paternalistic) views. So if she ran, I'd vote Libertarian and basically (but not literally) throw my vote in the trash.



What about the people electing their first non-white president (or vice-president)? Barack Obama is a brilliant man with very intellectual views, but he's black and that automatically puts him in a hole in about 25-30 US states. If he ran, I would actually vote Democratic even though his views are more conservative than my own. I just know that I'd be much happier in a nation with a president that I can respect intellectually and morally, and Obama is one of the few potential candidates with those qualities. But what kind of support would Obama get in a state like Arkansas or Kentucky? People don't realize how backwards this country still is, and I'm almost afraid to see Obama be the first black man with an honest chance to win because I do not want to see him fail. Obama could win the primary only to get blown away in the general election. His only hope would be if a conservative third candidate emerged like Ross Perot or (the conservative version of) Ralph Nader to split up the votes of the Republican candidate.



The real question is not who SHOULD win, but who WILL win. Other politicians like Ron Paul R-TX (don't let the R fool you, he's a Libertarian pro-weed congressman from Texas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul ) or Bernie Sanders I-VT ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders ) or even the incredibly liberal Barbara Boxer D-CA would be fantastic candidates, but aren't even considered "dark horses". I'd love to see an Obama-Boxer ticket or Obama-Sanders, or even Sanders-Paul or Obama-Paul or something like that, but there's NO WAY I'd ever see any of my favorites run for president and actually have a shot. The real candidate in '08 has to be very centrist, to the point where his party lines are quite blurred. I think that the most unifying combination would be a McCain-Lieberman ticket and that seems like it actually has an outside chance. In the end, it will be the centrist governor of a southern state who will emerge some time in 2007 and they will end up taking the White House in the same way that Bush and Clinton did.



Any prediction made on "Meet The Press" or any other news program right now about the '08 elections are about as useful as a helicopter ejection seat. Politics are pretty short-sighted and we do not even know what the issues will be in October/November of 2008. For all we know the main issue will be the intermating of different breeds of cat, and we don't know what the consensus view on that topic will be until the day it becomes an issue. After all, abortion and health care should be the issues right now, but instead it's homosexuals and the war. As I look forward, I hope that we put our focus on the truly important matters: providing the necessary services (healthcare, education, protection) for all Americans (Americans being those who live within our borders, regardless of citizenship and nationality), logical economic policy (taxing and regulating drugs, ending the Cuban embargo, raising the minimum wage, setting caps on tax breaks for wealthy people), and providing a helping hand to those countries that need us like the Sudan, Somalia and Nigeria. But in the end, it will just be another election about boys kissing in the Castro district.

Big Changes Ahead

As this week comes to an end, it's time to take a look back and think about the changes we're facing as Americans and citizens of the international community as a whole. First and foremost, according to CNN and the other news channels, the most important change that happened was the end to the talentless Britney Spears' marriage to some other talentless loser. Also, apparently she hired a personal trainer, so that's big news too...but seriously, these elections were a great sign that the American people only took about 5 years to figure out that they'd elected a stupid and dangerous regime. Out are people like Katharine Harris, George Allen and Rick Santorum in favor of liberal candidates. Also gone is Donald Rumsfeld, who was inexplicably supported by the White House up until after they lost control of Congress. But what will these changes really affect in the next two years? Is it two years too late?



With the Democrats taking over the house there are many changes looming. First and foremost is the replacement of a conservative speaker with Nancy Pelosi, a San Francisco liberal, which should change the whole tone of the lower house. Not only that, but Senate is now blue as well. With both houses being liberal (well, centrist liberal) George Bush will have to placate to his opposition instead of intimidating them. The Democrats were incredibly weak as the minority, will they be able to step up to the plate now? I think there is some good leadership in their ranks, but there are probably not enough strong-willed liberals in there to make much of a difference. People like Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank and Barbara Boxer will be much more powerful now with their majority backing, but I cannot see the Democrats being capable of the kind of manipulation that the Republican party was known for. It's still too early to tell.



So what else is new? Many powerful Republican congressmen lost a whole lot of influence simply because the majority party is not their own anymore. People like Duncan Hunter lose their chairmanships over powerful committees (thank god) in favor of Democrats. That is where the changes will be felt most, within those committees. Congress will no longer be controlled by right-wingers, it will be controlled by left-wingers. The centrists will do what they always do and fade into the background in favor of their more outspoken colleagues. I hope that they do what they promise and go after securing health-care and social security for all Americans, protecting our civil liberties and bringing the war in Iraq to a close, but they will likely not accomplish all that much.



As for the other changes, the end of Rumsfeld's career does a lot for our foreign relations. Rumsfeld was the architect of the war and it was nothing but a house of cards. When it came crashing down on us all, he should have been fired like Mike Brown...instead he was given constant votes of confidence from the president and congress never did anything to oust him from power. The timing was strange though. Why would they wait until after the election to get rid of an unpopular person? Wouldn't it have helped the Republican party if Gates had been named as a successor before Tuesday? I am also not mourning the loss of bigoted Rick Santorum from the Senate. His entire term was spent bashing those who were not closed-minded Christian right-wingers. He promoted a connection of church and state, criminalizing homosexuality and did nothing to improve life in this country. I say good riddance!



The results of this election will be apparent very soon. The nation has shifted to the left thanks to the failed policies of the right. But it's only a matter of time before it shifts back, so it's up to us liberals to push for as much change as we can while we have the chance. Santa Cruz decriminalized marijuana, will San Francisco follow suit now that one of their own has real power in Washington? Could we finally see an end to the war on weed? Probably not...but it could be a start. We've spent too many years living in fear of an opponent who has attacked us on our soil just once in 5 years...maybe now we'll learn to fear those who have been attacking our civil liberties through the use of irrational fear of terrorism. I see big changes for the US ahead, but it's up to US as the voters to make sure we continue moving in the right direction.



One anti-media note...below are the headlines after the announcement of Rumsfeld's resignation

On CNN "Rumsfeld Resigns"

On Fox News "Bush: Stay the course means get the job Done"