The Reminder is making its archives back to 2003 available on our website. Please note that, due to technical limitations, archive articles are presented without the usual formatting.
Analysis by Jonathon Naylor If you think Canada is politically discordant right now, just look at our neighbours to the south. Not since 1996, when the Teflon-like Bill Clinton bested an aging Bob Dole, has the outcome of a presidential election been glaringly obvious in the weeks leading up to the vote. The deep division started in 2000, when a coin toss would have been as good a predictor as any in the intense race between Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore. In the end, Bush lost the popular vote but narrowly won enough states to secure the presidency in a stark illustration of the principle that every vote counts. Bush captured re-election with over half the popular vote in 2004, this time against John Kerry, but the U.S. remained bitterly split. In time Bush proved to be an albatross around the neck of Republicans, who brought in 70-something centrist John McCain as their candidate for the 2008 election. His opponent was a sharp, hip, previously little-known Democrat named Barack Obama. Vying to become America's first black president, Obama sparked an excitement rarely seen in modern politics. Still, America remained divided. Obama led some polls, but so did McCain _ at least up until the financial crisis of the fall, a development for which Bush received much blame. On Election Day 2008, most _ but not all _ observers expected an Obama victory. He won, of course, but with less than 53 per cent of the vote, it was not exactly a landslide. Now, with Obama looking to hang onto the keys to the White House, all bets are off with a little over three weeks until voters cast their ballots on Nov. 6. Polling this week has suggested either a deadlock or a within-the-margin-of-error lead for either Obama or his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney. Romney has been buoyed by last week's strong debate performance in which he succeeded, to some degree, in shaking off his image as a robotic, out-of-touch millionaire. But the Obama campaign is fighting back, and hard, painting their man as a leader accomplishing remarkable feats after being dealt a tough hand from Bush. Politically, Obama has held up surprisingly well over a first term dogged by perpetually high unemployment and growing concerns over growing national debt. The president's willingness to take risks has been a double-edged sword, adoring him to millions but alienating millions more. Take 'Obamacare,' the president's version of universal health care. Hard-core Democrats love this plan because it mends what they have long viewed as a tragic inequity in American society. But polls show the majority of Americans _ including some 'soft' Democrats _ oppose the controversial program, which, among other things, will force all U.S. citizens to buy health insurance. What about Obama's frequent use of unmanned drones to drop bombs on people, including American citizens, deemed to be U.S. enemies? Such action may win Obama limited friends within hawkish circles. Who knows, it may even be keeping the U.S. a bit safer from terrorism. But there's no doubt the drone assassinations are also alienating progressives who thought Obama would do away with all this legally / morally questionable killing stuff. Of course Romney faces challenges of his own. Many in his own party view him as too moderate, too willing to find common ground with Democrats across the aisle. Romney is also in an awkward position in opposing Obamacare. After all, as governor of Massachusetts, he implemented what is essentially a state version of the president's plan. Then there are Romney's many gaffes, including his secretly-videotaped declaration that Obama supporters are a bunch of government-dependent leeches who will not have any sense talked into them. Two flawed candidates. Highly divisive times. It's not a recipe for great politics, but it should make for a very interesting election night.
