Election Day is right around the proverbial corner. After what has seemed to many like an extended amount of campaigning, we are finally rounding the last stretch, seeing the light at the end of the tunnel and about to pack it all up and go strong or go home.
This election is bound to be historic. We have the first African-American nominee for president Senator Barack Obama running for the Democratic Party and the first Republican female nominee for vice president Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. America is finally opening its democratic process to people who aren’t stodgy, old, white men, a definite plus for 2008.
However, I am afraid that in all this hustle and bustle of history, historic nominations and so forth, some of the important issues have been forgotten. And, in reality, aren’t the issues supposed to be the ultimate factors for voters when choosing a candidate to support?
Hell, I don’t care if a person is red, yellow, green, purple or whatever race, sexuality or creed they profess to be. All that really matters is substance, and it seems to at least be that some of this substance has been swept aside to let history make its way through.
Further proving my case, there were several topics that seemed to have almost completely vanished from any interview, discussion or political rhetoric with either of the candidates. That is, at least, until the most recent debate, for it took until the third and final political debate for some very important issues to finally see the light of day.
We didn’t hear about abortion, gay rights, Supreme Court decisions or many other social issues until this last debate. But there was one very important and pressing issue that was mentioned for only moments, and then swept away under the rug again: video games.
For as important as it is for some people to know if a candidate is pro-life or pro-choice or if a candidate supports gay rights or doesn’t, it’s just as important for others to know the candidates’ stances on video games.
And for such an important social issue of our time, it was given approximately three words between the three debates, and those were by Obama, briefly mentioning that parents had to unplug the video games and help children get outside.
So that would make me think that Obama was pretty anti-video games. I searched both candidates’ sites and was unable to find even one word devoted to video games on either one; not under technology, not under education, not even under the various other issues sections of their pages.
Obama’s comments at the debate would make me think he was anti-games, which is a very harsh stance to take when one is trying to cater to younger voters.
But just recently, Obama started running ads in between 10 and 18 video game titles (depending on who you believe) including ‘Madden ’09.” Only gamers who take these titles online can see the ads, however, and only if they live in one of 10 crucial swing states.
Similarly, in an attempt to try to bridge the generation gap and appease this disgruntled mob of video game bloggers, chat boarders and players alike, McCain put a version of ‘Space Invaders,” titled ‘Pork Invaders,” on his Web site. The game allows you to shoot ‘pigs,” representing the pork spending, with get this vetoes from John McCain instead of space invader bullets.
Now, everybody loves ‘Space Invaders,” but if you are trying to connect with youthful voters by using a game that only reminds you how old and out of touch you are, you might want to rethink your video game policy.
I wish I could say that this election gave more hope for gamers and the future of video games. It seems that neither candidate has really given sufficient time to developing their positions on this important generational issue and is merely trying to tap into games to get more votes.
But hey, at least Senator Hillary Clinton didn’t get the nomination, as she was always an avid opponent of fun I mean violent video games.
Clark is a member of the class of 2012.
