Arab News 08/22/2007
By Michael Shank

The winner of the 2008 United States presidential election is going to be the most expensive candidate ever. Estimates gauge that the road to the White House will have cost a total of $1 billion. What else is unprecedented about the 2008 Oval Office race is that state primaries will convene a full nine months, perhaps more, prior to elections. Recently, nearly half of the country was vying for early February primaries, now January is on schedule, soon December. And finally, what the 2008 bid heralds that no race prior could brag about is the endless amount of media-hosted debates, online forums, webcasts, and video blogs. Online media has leveled the playing field and the candidates are taking full advantage of its offerings.

However, the unparalleled spending, early primaries, and constant communication cannot mask a reality that many voters still struggle with: A major lack of confidence in the current candidates. Sure, most voters will head to the polls and elect someone, anyone, to replace President Bush. On that there is consensus. But short of that, frankly, some of us haven’t got a clue. Especially for those of us who desire a radical change in US foreign policy, the pickings are slim. Take a look:

Leading the Democrats in the mid-40s (percentage-wise), Senator Hillary Clinton, while perhaps a necessity for the ideals of gender equity, aptly carries a title given her by a challenger, that of Bush-lite. When dealing with adversaries, Clinton has taken no option off the table, including nuclear weapons on Al-Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Pakistan (an odd choice for an indecipherable target). Nor is dialogue with enemies essential, noted in her rebuff to a challenger’s diplomacy pledge. By all measures, Clintonian security is about building walls. As Bush did in Baghdad to separate Shia and Sunni Muslims, Clinton does in Israel. Elect Clinton, it seems, and we elect Bush.

Running a Democratic second, in the 20s, Senator Barack Obama offered many on the left an unwavering and principled challenger – i.e. he was against the war before the war began. That was Obama’s ticket to the White House and he quickly realized that voters, even the centrists, liked him better for it. Yet, for all his diplomacy-speak and nuclear weapons embargoes, he caved to criticism from Clinton and came out swinging on security shortly after. Worried about appearing weak, Obama blasted Bush for the wrong battlefield (Iraq) and promised us the “right battlefield” in Pakistan. It appears as if Obama is becoming as Bush-lite as his competitor Clinton.

Rallying third for the Democrats, in the teens, former Senator John Edwards, while perhaps the strongest of the three on domestic issues, offers little new in the so-called War on Terrorism. While Edwards claims an interest in tackling the root causes of terrorism, any program to do so falls at the bottom of his agenda, long after a ratcheting up of numbers, primarily troops, intelligence and tanks numbers. Note to Edwards: Bush tried that already in Iraq and it failed to work. Greater numbers of this kind will not win the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Programs like Edwards’ 10,000-strong Marshall Plan to populate the world with American humanitarians are more likely to win the hearts and minds. Too bad the plan is so unrealistic and, more importantly, so low on Edwards’ agenda.

The Republicans, similarly, provide a lackluster list of candidates. Rudy Giuliani leads the party with a one-issue platform: An offensive against our enemies. Thus, a return to a US Department of War, the predecessor to the Department of Defense, might be a likely scenario under Giuliani. Mitt Romney, with the strongest showing in the Iowa straw poll, is keen on doubling the size of an already dysfunctional Guantanamo. The US internment camp in Cuba is perhaps the biggest blot on America’s reputation, so damaging that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have called for its closure, yet Romney remains firm, undaunted. And poor John McCain is still convinced we are winning the war in Iraq. Thankfully, despite his consistent ranking in third position, McCain is headed out shortly due to financial troubles.

Consequently, for those of us who think current US foreign policy strategies are not effective, who does one vote for in 2008? Peace candidate Rep. Dennis Kucinich? Libertarian candidate Rep. Ron Paul? To be frank, both hardly seem presidential or electable, despite how agreeable some of their strategies may sound.

Disappointingly, no leading candidate in either party has me excited. And I don’t think I’m alone. What is needed fast, if a candidate wants to secure my vote and the votes of a whole slew of folks like me, is someone who is ready to challenge Washington’s foreign policy status quo. Bombing terrorists has never worked for us, yet that is what all the leading candidates have pledged to do. Keep this up and I’ll keep away from the polls in 2008. Change it and you’ve got my vote.

Michael Shank is an analyst with George Mason University’s Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution in Arlington, Virginia.