Letters to the Editor
-
Choice
Lets not mince words here; most of the blame is on your own profession, your colleagues.
Your colleagues made sure that John Edwards wouldn't be a choice. After Obama entered the race your colleagues settled on their storyline. It was to be a contest between the 'historic' duo. So how to get rid of the third wheel, the irritant, the candidate that disrupted the storyline, the candidate that made their lives a little more complicated.
Maureen Dowd had given a clue in 2004 when she called Edwards the Breck girl. Why that's it, a play on that theme. After all the American people can always be suckered into that kind of story and just to seal the deal how about a story about the sale of his house. Good start, an expensive haircut, expensive because they paid for loss of business, travel time, etc. but hell, the public didn't have to know that. Now that house. Make a story out of the buyer and how the buyer is the antithesis of Edwards message. The public will probably forget that the last time any of them sold a house that they didn't know the buyer until closing and even then it would be necessary to have the buyers biography to know that his background. Great start and combined with the big new house the whole thing dovetails with the next contrivance, inauthenticity.
Why how can a rich guy be a champion of the poor? The public will forget FDR, JFK or for that matter TR. That's it, neat package, drinks all around. Now the coup de grace, ignore him. Make sure he stays buried by ignoring him.
I was excited about John Edwards. My God, a Democrat, a real honest to God Democrat. A smart policy agenda that fits the nation's needs. And even better, a passionate commitment to those ends and a thorough grasp of all issues, an understanding of what the policies meant and implied. A clean as a whistle, intelligent, engaging candidate with solutions. A fine orator and a fighter.
So now you're torn between the two 'historic' candidates. The identity candidates. Do you vote for your gender or do you cast your vote based on race, to soothe your guilty conscience?
Tough choice. Not really, but by bringing gender and race into the picture you've made it tough. You had thought of John Edwards as a refuge but were unenthused in part because it was just supporting another white guy. Made that little bit needlessly complicated as well.
Maybe you've spent too much time as a journalist. Your story is reminiscent of so many stories told by other journalists about the angst they've suffered when it came time to cast a ballot. So many irrelevancies included in making that choice. And cynicism, let’s not forget that you must be a hip, cynic to be a journalist. Gotta fit in with the crowd. Little wonder that the press has guided the public into selecting so many schmucks in recent decades. Good choices destroyed because they were earnest or intelligent or they just weren’t sociable enough.
The choice is really very simple. Does the candidate have an agenda that will bring further harm to the nation? There went ALL of the Republicans so now your choice is narrowed to consideration of the Democrats. Examine the policy agenda of each candidate, determine if that agenda suits the needs of the nation. Now proceed to the next step. Is the candidate viable. Does this candidate actually have a prayer of being elected? If the answer is no then out goes the candidate. By the way, there went Kucinich. Did the candidate and his/her advisors develop the agenda as the core of the campaign? Oops, everyone except Edwards was just eliminated. Can't have that, after all, your colleagues eliminated him last February.
Your choice now is simple because the last step in candidate selection/rejection will leave you with one choice.
Ditch the one whose campaign is based on vague fluff. Ditch the one whose appeal is aimed at the confused and uninformed. Setting oneself up as a messianic figure is a deal breaker.
That leaves you with one choice and it should be very obvious.
And the next time, simplify your life by eliminating race and gender and stick to the president type stuff. One last little tip. Give extra credit to the candidate that the media goes out of its way to trash.
-
Why not both?
It's a problem if the Dems split down the middle on who should be president. If there is no compromise candidate, then both should be on the ticket. How to get that is the tricky part. And which should head the ticket and which should be held in reserve? There may be a solution but in the heat of the contest few people are ready to listen to a solution.
-
It certainly is NOT Hillary.
Reviewing Hillary's methodical playing of the "Race card", and "The Perpetual Victim" against Obama; and, her recent commentary on Iraq; Pakistan; Energy Policy; the need for her to control the 14 Trillion $ American Economy from the White House ( this from a woman who hasn't managed so much as a corner vegetable stand, or for that matter her own marriage; but, of course you could count Whitewater, and her tenure as Madam for Bill's White House Brothel ); her statement in San Francisco: "We're going to have to take more from you, and give it to others for the common good."; Illegal Immigration; Taxes; Infanticide; Massive new Government spending; Multi million $ Senate earmarks for supporters of Hillary's Presidential campaign; Socialized medicine; and, the Clinton's history of emasculating the military, verifies that this grievously flawed woman would be the female version of the Jimmy Carter debacle that gave us the Ayatollah Khomeini who ushered in rampant Islamic radicalism; block-long lines at our gasoline stations; a severely hollow military; and, a record Misery Index. Only much worse. Considering all of her recent gaffes, e.g. "I voted FOR IT (referring to the Bankruptcy Bill); but, I was glad to see that it didn't pass.", one has to wonder if excessive use of Botox has affected her mental stability. It's no wonder that her campaign staff is shielding her from reporter and audience unscripted questions. Greg Neubeck