Mish-mash of little sentences I found floating around.
Too often in this country political debate turns into personal attack. The idea that if someone doesn’t agree with you that obviously makes them weak-minded or less intelligent. As if viewing these often shifting policies as fact makes us better for it.
The media loves to play this card; as did the Clintons during parts of the campaign. John Edwards won the white male vote in South Carolina and now NPR is saying that the white male has no other candidate to run to since, oh Clinton is female and Obama is black. As an Asian female, I don’t know where I stand anymore. I suppose I should vote for Clinton since she’s female, but I’m also a minority like Obama! OH NOES. Not like anyone is paying the least attention the Asian vote, since it’s so small. I think my femaleness trumps my minority status in this case. The same issue that CNN was going on and on about, but just about the black female vote.
When the campaigns have been, more or less, trying to break free from the race or sex stereotypes, it’s been hard when the media is focused on it.
I also read an article talking about how demographics have worked so far this campaign because people keep using different ones. That was before Wisconsin, but pundits can still twist the numbers so that it will always work, when if you look closer, it’s too lose to hold completely.
Politics of the Past
Obama is reaching for Kennedy, the Republicans want to be the next Reagan [and so does Obama in the sense of uniting the country], and even Clinton has reached to Johnson. This election that is taunting “change” sure is friendly with the past. Clinton does so in a more pragmatic way, Obama’s is in his words, and the Republicans continue to tout the name of Reagan whenever they can. Some is of the media’s doing, but I wonder how much the past looked to the past as well.
“[Clinton] is 60. She left Yale Law School at age 25. Evidently she considers everything she has done since school, from her years at Little Rock’s Rose law firm to her good fortune with cattle futures, as presidentially relevant experience.
The president who came to office with the most glittering array of experiences had served 10 years in the House of Representatives, then became minister to Russia, then served 10 years in the Senate, then four years as secretary of state (during a war that enlarged the nation by 33 percent), then was minister to Britain. Then, in 1856, James Buchanan was elected president and in just one term secured a strong claim to the rank as America’s worst president. Abraham Lincoln, the inexperienced former one-term congressman, had an easy act to follow.” [source]
I think it’s an interesting argument, and I have to say it should be reported as part of a balanced look at all the candidates. Still, what if’s are all apart of the future and you take the risk of voting who you think is best. Best won’t be perfect, but I still have trust that although Obama is a politician; his rhetoric is impeccable and his plans left of center; his head and heart work together better than other politicians.
As much as having John McCain in the White House scares me, I think it was unfair of the Times to write such a lofty article about something that possibly happened almost ten years ago. The timing was rather unfortunate; they could have sat on it for a few more months and gotten actual proof. NY Daily News.
McCain likes rather plastic looking blondes, this is old news.
Too bad the majority of America wouldn’t “buy” that factual account of our Foreign Policy. 😦 We’re fighting a giant scarecrow but the population is keeping us from fighting the actual monsters lurking worldwide.