Other than the spilling of blood there are very few links that can be drawn between Bloody Kansas in the 1850s and the war in Iraq happening as we speak. However, one of the links that can be made is the campaign strategy of both James Buchanan and Barack Obama. For Buchanan in the election of 1856 the big issue was if states entering the Union should be free or slave states, in the 2008 election Iraq remains a major issue.
One thing that candidates try to avoid is a trail of strong positions on major topics. James Buchanan was out of the country for the debate on Bloody Kansas and therefore had no position either way on the issue. Neither the Southern or Northern states could oppose him on this issue like other candidates and James Buchanan emerged as the winner in the election.
For candidates like Hillary Clinton there is a history of a vote in Congress for going to war with Iraq. It is hard to shake off that vote and be the candidate for change and an exit from Iraq when this vote looms over he head. Obama on the other hand has been able to state that he opposed the war in Iraq and never voted for it since he wasn't in Congress when the vote came up (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/) . In the recent campaign adds for the Democratic nomination Clinton tried to portray herself as the experienced candidate who can best protect the nation. Obama came back with an add almost exactly like Clinton's but only stating he was the candidate with the judgement to protect the nation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irNLgCP37m0&feature=related). The only thing left to see is if the strategy works this time around.
-Andrew
No comments:
Post a Comment