Politically Overdosed - A Rant
Published March 10, 2008
Add to that, I don’t see much of a difference between the two Democrats, and John McCain is so liberally Republican, he’s actually close to them. Granted, Obama is a great orator, moving people to fainting and tears. He has generated a buzz around him that appeals to the young with compelling YouTube videos. However, to me, he and Clinton have the same amount of experience. (I’m sorry, but being a spouse of the President is not the same as being the President. Sure they were close, but we didn’t elect her.) Obama has an obvious charismatic value, not seen since Bobby Kennedy or Ronald Regan. Clinton is tenacious and bull-doggish. Some women like that about her. (I do not) McCain appeals to conservatives, especially those treading the middle ground. However, there’s only so much any of them can do once placed into office. Do you think for a minute that if terrorists attacked us again, a Democrat would not do what George Bush did?
Clinton and Obama each come with baggage, that’s apparent. It remains to be seen what dirt they will come up with on McCain. Perhaps the mudslinging will make a difference in the minds of some folks, but I can tell you, it only makes me angry. The news media is supposed to outline the facts, not sensationalize every little oddity of our public servants.
Which leads me to the next question that is burning a hole in my heart: why would any of these people even want the job? Why are they spending millions of dollars to get a job that will gross them around $200,000 a year? Why subject yourself to scrutiny of every deed, of every word you or your cohorts have ever spoken? Is it public service, or something else? Each candidate, I am sure, will unearth some unsavory fact about the other, and the news media will run with it like a lion with a lamb in its teeth. The media has become expert at taking things out of context. Why anyone in his or her right mind would want to be President is beyond me. Sure, whoever wins the prize will be 'Leader of the Free World,' but these days the US is not exactly a best-loved country. Whoever gets the job will be a walking target for kooks from the homeland and abroad. The potential President would have more problems than perks. You couldn’t hand me the job for half of what was spent on the campaigns.
As for the three candidates, the jury is still out. All I know is that I’m turning the news off once again. I’m not sure how I’m going to vote in November. Until then, I’m climbing into my cave with plenty of reading material, in hibernation and hoping for the best.
- Politically Overdosed - A Rant
- Published: March 10, 2008
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Politics
- Filed Under: Politics: Elections and Candidates, Politics: U.S.
- Writer: Joanne Huspek
- Joanne Huspek's BC Writer page
- Joanne Huspek's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Interesting that you should talk about climbing back into your 'cave'.
Sounds like you subscribe to Plato's ideal that those best suited for leadership are those who desire it least.
The author states,
"I think Obama, Clinton and McCain would each make a decent president. In fact, I think all of them would make the same president."
No matter who becomes president, he or she will have to deal with the House and the Senate and also with the Supreme Court. Not to mention the Federal Bureaucracy, which has both the power and the tendency to override the desires of all three branches at least for a few years. No matter what a candidate says, this should be kept firmly in mind and, for that reason, the author may be at least partially correct.
Based on their thus far articulated policies, the author also be correct. However, there was once a popular song, "The cows may come and the cows may go, but the bull will go on forever."
It is, sometimes, appropriate to look beyond political promises and policies; they relate mainly to the past rather than to the future and, beyond that, to have little meaning.
There is, however, a more important question: Which of the candidates is a person of acceptable morality? Not a person of untarnished morality; anyone like that would flee the presidency like the Devil (allegedly) flees holy water. No person of superior virtue would even consider running for President. Be that as it may, if you bought a used car from one of the candidates, which would you continue to trust a few months after the purchase?
Similarities though the three may have, I don't think they are fungible and I don't think that in, say, 2010, they will appear to have been fungible.
Dan Miller
I can understand why Americans might be politically overdosed ... what with all this endless farting around on primaries.
A near-12-month race for the White House; that's a misnomer ... it's more like an ultra marathon where those left standing will limp or slow jog to the finish line. The winner falls through the tape, gasping. I got the Presidency? No, please, I need another 12 months to recover. Is there a bed in the Oval Office?
Bring out the oxygen ... for the voters.
Come on America: Just have a proper election like normal people, where someone actually wins something.
You ask why anyone seeks the office,
"Is it public service, or something else?"
The cynic in me (some would say I'm all cynic) maintains that, with very few exceptions, all our presidents have sought the "something else," mostly power and a place in history (hubris).
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/74676)
Hi Joanne!
*cough* Obama! *cough*