US election drama and dramatics

ONE presidential election that somehow or the other touches the lives of kings, despots, tycoons and fakirs around the globe is the one held in the United States of America every four years. In less than one year there will be the next election in search of a new president. From Hugo Chavez to Kim Jong Il, from Mollah Omar to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, from Oliver Stone to Shah Rukh Khan, everyone will remain glued before the TV set to know who becomes the next US president.
This one election sees outpouring of money, energy, praise and invectives at supersonic speed to confuse the common voters. The big show starts with the great debates of the aspiring candidates as they try to outwit one another in the race for nomination as the party candidate.
As we have watched through the decades, often the debates turn spiteful when candidates begin to hit below the belt in their bid to expose the lethal weaknesses of the other aspirants from the same party. It becomes unleashing of "tongue power" to push another out of the race. Such are times when we remember the age-old saying: "When you have friends like this who needs an enemy?" And what could be the best example at the moment than the case of Obama and Hillary going for one another's throats?
These two politicians belonging to the same political party are doing great disservice to themselves but no doubt a great service to the rivals -- Republicans -- by washing their dirty linen in their full view. They are exposing their individual weaknesses in public, no doubt much to the glee of the rival political party, on national issues like health- care, tax, employment, education, illegal immigrants etc., and international issues like Iraq and Afghan wars, Iran, Pakistan and so on.
It has been reported that in mid-November 2007 Hillary Clinton said of a relatively young Barack Obama: "We can't afford 'on-the-job training' for our next president." (Oh that hurts, Mrs Clinton! Just because you know the kitchens of White House well does not mean …!!). She also accused him with words like: His "words and action" differed.
In the past months the two often came close to exchanging punches as they stood on the same dais talking to the crowd. Toby Harnden and Alex Spillius of The Telegraph wrote in details about the war of words between Obama and Hillary in one of the past issues. Some of it goes like this:
"Barack Obama lashed out at Hillary Clinton and her husband Bill in a debate in South Carolina, angrily accusing the New York senator of lying about her record and being 'willing to say anything to get elected.' When Mrs. Clinton stated that her rival had said last week that he 'really liked the ideas of the Republicans over the last 10 to 15 years.'
Mr. Obama shot back: 'Hillary, we just had the tape. You just said that I complimented the Republican ideas. That is not true.' He added: 'The irony of this is that you provided much more fulsome praise of Ronald Reagan in a book by Tom Brokaw that's being published right now, as did Bill Clinton in the past. 'So these are the kinds of political games that we are accustomed to."
Mrs. Clinton, who enjoys a clear lead in national polls and has re-established herself as front runner after her Nevada win, counter-attacked, accusing him of "representing your contributor" in "his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago." Obama hit out at former President Bill Clinton for stretching the truth about his Iraq record. When Mrs. Clinton responded "well, I'm here -- he's not." Mr. Obama attacked again, saying: "OK. Well, I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes."
Earlier, in a speech in South Carolina, Mr. Obama directly attacked his rival for the nomination, saying she was guilty of "Washington speak," and made a detailed rebuttal of Mr Clinton's "distorting" of his words.
Bill Clinton denounced the consistency of Mr. Obama's opposition to the war in Iraq, calling it a "fairy tale." He said Mr. Obama -- just like Mrs. Clinton -- had voted to fund the war. The Obama campaign responded that it would have been irresponsible not to support troops once they were in combat in Iraq.
Interestingly, as it began to go from bad to worse, Obama said recently he didn't want the campaign "to degenerate into so much tit-for-tat, back-and-forth that we lose sight of why all of us are doing this." Yes, Mr. Obama, do spare us the sick shows where you two are fighting like two mentally deranged persons.
Also, the race for nomination by Obama and Hillary brought out two important issues in various columns -- that of a black man and a woman striving to be the next president of US. The most interesting perhaps is what has been written in Harvey's Column, published on September 10, 2007. He wrote: "Assuming we all live through it, this will no doubt be an exciting primary season. The Democrats are featuring a white woman and a black man in their star-studded cast. The Republicans are featuring an all-white male cast with none of the present contenders taking the spotlight. Assuming Obama or Clinton is nominated, the obvious question is whether a black man or a white woman can be elected president. Voting for a black woman isn't an option this season ... The answer to the two main questions is simple. It depends upon who the black man or the white woman is. As far as race is concerned, several years ago, Gen. Colin Powell, the black former secretary of state, would probably have been everyone's favourite. But today we're dealing with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
For those who oppose Obama and Clinton because of their party affiliation or just don't like either candidate, it may well not be because of race or gender. No one can give a definitive answer; it all has to do with personal opinion. So I asked around. Booker Peek, professor of African American Studies at Oberlin College, noted that blacks have held every elected office at the local, state and national levels except president. Hence, he believes that a black person or a white woman could be elected president today. "We have, as a nation, rendered race and gender to positions where they are negligible factors for most of us." But he'd be surprised if we couldn't elect someone just because he is black.
"Minnie Wade of Lorain, a member of the Lorain County Community College Board of Trustees, said: "While we still have rivers to cross and mountains to climb, with the multiplicity of cultures in American today, nothing is impossible." On the other hand, Diana Grossman Kahn, professor of gender and women's studies at Oberlin, said: "I am doubtful that a woman can be elected president. People are still deeply imbued with the stereotype of the president as a 'father,' or a military leader."
"Professor Valerie McGowan-Doyle, who teaches women's studies at LCCC, believes that a woman could be elected president because people are more interested in the issues and would not use gender as a factor in voting. She also believes that a black also could be elected president because there is such a strong desire for change throughout the country. As I said, it's all a matter of conjecture. Too bad the Republicans don't have a female and a black as candidates. It would make the primary season a little more challenging, if not confusing."
So, dear readers, keep your eyes and ears open since Obama and Hillary have not finished yet. They have to perform more and better to prove their worth. Meanwhile, Caroline Kennedy has spoken in support of Barrack Obama saying that his debates and style remind her of what she has read about her late father, the legendary John F. Kennedy. Then there are others who want to see the first ever woman sent to the White House, this time not as a housewife, but as the President of the United States.

Shahnoor Wahid is a Senior Assistant Editor of The Daily Star.