By Matt Kanitra
<[email protected]>

As a conservative living in Carmel, it is weird to feel like I am becoming part of the minority among my peers. While Carmel has historically been a conservative town, my generation has been moving steadily from the right toward more independent or liberal viewpoints. This is not a complaint, and, in fact, I love that there is such a wide range of beliefs and convictions. What is disturbing, however, is how if you voice an opinion that doesn’t support the left, that opinion is viewed as being obnoxious.

Much of this column is going to center around politics, but the point is not to spew my political beliefs on all those who read it. While some of my beliefs will be apparent, this will be an analysis of facts, not just conjecture on my part. It is a breakdown of double standards and fairness and their place in the 2008 election.

During the primary/caucus season, the majority of the media attention focused around the Democratic race, more specifically, the Clinton and Obama match-up. It was going to be an historic nomination, regardless of who won. In this year’s election, it seems, the Republican Party has become an afterthought, a side note, to the spectacle that is the Democratic Party.

When it became evident that Obama was going to receive the nomination, the media briefly mentioned McCain’s victory. Throughout the race, it would take something like Huckabee’s refusal to admit defeat to make the evening news mention more than just the Republican delegate count. The news networks didn’t spend as much time on it because it wasn’t as exciting as history in the making, but as far as the future of our government goes, it is equally important. Now let’s fast-forward to two months ago when the vice presidential pick came into focus.

Obama announced his decision first and chose Sen. Joseph Biden as his running mate to add some actual political experience to his ticket. Similar to the primaries, Obama received the bulk of the media coverage in the weeks leading up to the conventions and then McCain only got the spotlight for the few days in between the two announcements. McCain selected someone with a fresh viewpoint that would complement his years of experience in the political machine: Gov. Sarah Palin. Palin is a relatively young politician that has had very little experience in D.C., similar to Obama.

McCain supported his vice presidential choice with logic that was similar to what the entire Obama campaign is based on: a fresh approach that will help the country. But somehow, while that approach has worked for Obama, it’s viewed as just a political maneuver by McCain to win support by connecting with another demographic.

This is the perfect example of cross-party double standards. With the media’s support, Obama has been made to look like the poster child of youthful leadership that has not been jaded by years in Washington. Palin fits the same description, and has been running a conservative town that stays connected to its beliefs which makes her a logical pick. Is this blatant bias fair to the voters who are simply trying to learn about the candidates?

Why is it so outlandish to have a young vice president when it is fine to have an inexperienced president? It’s OK, somehow, for the Democratic Party and the media to draw attention to McCain’s age and health, implying that there is a chance he could die in office, placing Palin in charge. How can Palin’s inexperience be such a problem when Obama’s works perfectly for him? In fact, Palin has 17 years of official political experience versus Obama’s 12.

Right now, just as it was with the Democratic Primary, history is going to be made regardless of which side wins. In the past, all the candidates have been white males and the elections have focused mainly on their policies and ability to lead. We have the first woman and first black man on the presidential ticket, but should this really be the most important part of the upcoming election?