How I dread the idea of covering local politics

First published in The Daily News on Jan. 23, 2008.

I have an admission to make that may shock some, offend others and cause a handful of people to agree with me.

Canadian politics is boring. There, I said it.

I'm one of the few reporters out there who doesn't aspire to write for the political beat. I dread the thought of a spring election because I really hate covering elections. Elections are deathly dull affairs full of grandstanding and barnstorming and a bunch of other buzzwords that attempt to make everything more exciting than it really is.

We're on the verge of another election. If opposition Liberals and New Democrats vote against the Conservatives' 2008 budget then we're likely going to see an election as early as April or maybe May.

As a reporter, I should bone up (another exciting buzzword, far more interesting than research) on the issues in anticipation of the work ahead.

Instead, my attention is focused south of the border, where politics, at least for the moment, is interesting.

The United States.

George W. Bush and his Republican cronies, who did a wonderful job of screwing up a country that gets a worse rap than it deserves, is on his way out. He'll likely be taking his party with him come November.

Now there is an interesting battle brewing among Democrats about who will be the 44th president of the United States -- the battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

People more knowledgeable than I can weigh in on the merits of these two candidates. Me? I just want to point out how interesting they are compared to our party leaders at play here in Canada.

Clinton is a U.S. senator and the wife of Bill Clinton, who should need no introduction. She's also the first female senator for the state of New York.

In fact, her life has been about firsts. She was the first student to speak at commencement exercises for Wellesley College, the first female partner at Rose Law Firm, is the only First Lady to be subpoenaed, testifying before a federal grand jury as a consequence of the Whitewater scandal in 1996, and has a good shot at being the first female president.

That is if Obama doesn't beat her. Since announcing his presidential campaign in February 2007, Obama has emphasized ending the Iraq War, increasing energy independence, and providing universal health care as major priorities that have scored big with young American voters.

Since being elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004 he's pushed for legislation on lobbying and electoral fraud, climate change, nuclear terrorism, and care for returned U.S. military personnel. These points alone earn him my vote, provided I could cast a ballot.

Clinton is winning the race, having recently bested Obama in the Nevada primaries. Obama scored 80 per cent with black voters, but Clinton appealed to female voters and Hispanics. The simple fact that I know this says something.

What does that say about our brewing election here? For one thing we lack a dynamic candidate. Prime Minister Stephen Harper is anything but dynamic. I'll go on the record and say the only reason he won the 2006 federal election is because people had enough of the Liberals after more than a decade of rule.

I've met Stephane Dion. He's a nice guy. Very intelligent and well read. He's the kind of guy you want to have a glass of wine with but not the sort of man you'd follow into battle. He's not leadership material.

Jack Layton? Anybody know who Jack Layton is? He's the leader of the NDP and it's going to be a long time before that party has a shot at running the country. The only purpose he serves is taking votes away from either the Conservatives or Liberals.

I understand the U.S. has a fixed election date. The candidates have to campaign now. We have a fixed federal date, too, but there is no reason for the country to plow into an election at this point except to get the Conservatives out of power.

While I applaud the reasoning, I don't think this is the time to do it, nor are these the people I want running the country. I doubt we'll have a Clinton or an Obama to cheer for when the clock ticks down to October 2009, but then we'll have to vote for someone. And having to is better than being forced to.

© 2008 The Daily News (Kamloops)