Of late I have been focusing a lot on the Democratic Presidential candidates. That is not because of a preference for these candidates but the fact that there are so few differences between the candidates. In fact a huge argument could be made to say that the main difference between them all is the fact that there is a Black male, Female, and White male candidate.

Beyond these superficial facts there is little difference in all the candidates. They all strive for the same goals and they all have similar support, the same cannot be said of the Republican candidates.

While the Republican candidates are similar there are major difference in social, economic, and foreign policies. There are significantly different levels of experience and recognition, and all the candidates can boast of large numbers of Republicans that believe in the specific issues each champions.

In the Democratic Presidential nomination race there is a decided lack of experience among the 2 frontrunners. Neither Senator Clinton nor Obama have significant elected office experience. While Hillary has been around politics for decades, she was not actively involved nor elected until her election as New York State Senator. Barack served in the Illinois State government for a short while before entering the Senate. And John Edwards was in the Senate too, before he ran for the Vice-Presidency and failed.

Focusing on the 2 leaders we see many issues that are questionable. Senator Obama has his past which connects him to an unscrupulous landlord; though no illegal activities have ever been stated. He is the son of a Muslim father and a White mother, both of which are questionable factors in America if one is willing to be honest about the general prejudices against non-Christians and non-Whites in America. Oh, and there was the early 2007 rumor that Senator Obama smoked cigarettes, which is another negative in a party that screams for green everything and hates all large corporations no matter how many people they employ.

For Senator Clinton, well there is a litany of issues that precede her. Travelgate, her highly unusual commodity trading profits, her performance in her law firm, how much she knew of her husband’s numerous affairs and inappropriate actions. According to Dick Morris, a former confidant of the President Bill Clinton staff, see has even lied under oath multiple times, though not in a manner that would prove perjury. And again, if we are honest, she is a woman which is not the most politically beneficial fact.

For the Republicans things are murkier.

Rudy Giuliani is known world wide for 9/11, and nothing else. Even nationally his fame decreases exponentially once you remove 9/11 and step outside NYC. And many new Yorkers disapproved of his social policies, which many felt bordered on the illegal and racist.

Mitt Romney has worked in companies that created and removed jobs. He did turn around the Olympic Games, and had success as Governor. But he also raised taxes and has flipped on several conservative issues in many years, especially since he announced his Presidential run. Oh, and he is Mormon, which places him above Muslims, but not by much in general.

And Senator John McCain, has failed to get the nomination previously. He also has made several political turn around on issues. Not to mention his support of troops in Iraq (highly unpopular with ultra-liberals and most major media outlets that want to run from the war at all costs). His age is a big factor among many Americans, where age consciousness is as important as good looks for some reason. [Ugly people in general do not get elected President].

Rounding out the Republicans is Mike Huckabee. He is perhaps the most religious of all the candidates, in fact too religious for many. He wants to change the Constitution to convey more of his religious beliefs (a major problem for multitudes of Americans). He has avoided mentioning his position on several key issues. He is a former Governor, and while successful he also raised taxes. Perhaps worst of all, many of his platforms are similar in nature to the democratic ideology.

Overall, there is not one candidate that is perfect for the Presidency in all honesty. I’ve simplified their problems, and failed to mention any of the positives I know. There are a huge number of posts I have made on all of that previously, not to mention many others across the net. But the fact remains that none stand out as an absolute choice for America.

Yet one of these people (sorry Ron Paul fans) will be President. The biggest question I believe is this. What number of people, and therefore states, will the eventual President carry? Why is this important?

Because that will set the mandate that the nation wants to have enforced. If record numbers of Americans (I hope) come out to vote and pick one candidate overwhelmingly then it is those campaign promises, made since 2007, that are going to be fulfilled.

So given that, perhaps one of the best tools to decide with when walking into all the Primaries remaining is this: Who is most likely to live up to the promises made to date?

If you don’t know what has been promised, I suggest you check. Because otherwise you will be getting an unknown quantity when you thought you were getting a 30 second polispeak soundbite or a nice look on television.

Such is the election of 2008.

Comments