The Presidential Campaign: Hyperbole and Invective

At a time when the nation faces an energy crisis, a housing crisis, and the strong possibility of the economy slipping into recession, America needs a political dialogue from the presidential candidates that focuses on these issues and how they plan to solve them. Unfortunately what we get from most of the media is a never-ending flow of hyperbole and invective. Anytime either candidate says anything that can be taken out of context it is immediately done, so that the media has an eye or ear catching headline to attract its audience. When Senator McCain says something that can be interpreted as him misunderstanding what's going on, the "age issue" is frequently brought up. Republicans shout that "Obama is the most liberal person ever to run for the presidency." The implication being he will turn us into a quai-socialist state. News: we are one already. Obama is accused of having a plan for Iraq that will lead to a disastrous defeat for this nation and catastrophe for the Middle East. If Obama is elected, there will be US bases in Iraq for some time to come. None of this addresses the key issues that we need to hear about.

In an article in the Chicago Tribune, Mark Silva was stated the following:

“It's probably time to stipulate that John McCain and Barack Obama are good
Americans. It may also be time to acknowledge that McCain is not "confusing
the basic facts and reality'' in Iraq, as Obama's chief foreign policy adviser
has suggested, and that Obama is not "wedded to defeat'' in Iraq, as McCain's
chief foreign policy adviser has suggested. And McCain's campaign may be a lot
of things, but it's hard to believe, as Democratic National Committee Chairman
Howard Dean said on cable news TV this week, that it's "sleazy.''

Yet, in the over-the-top environment of an over-heated presidential campaign, still in the early stages of a five-month marathon, hyperbole is the stuff of headlines.
And misconceptions run so deep, and are so readily misconstrued by
opponents and sheer mischief-makers, that now the Obama campaign has launched a rumor-control Web-site which finds itself addressing the rumors that the
on-again, off-again, flag-pin wearing senator from Illinois refuses to say the
Pledge of Allegiance. See Obama pledge - from that day in June 2007 when he
presided over the Senate. “

Silva goes on to address what I believe is one of the major roots of the problem “All this is worth remembering as the surrogates of the presidential campaign step forward to say things that the candidates themselves are loath to say - and there is a reason they let other people do this sort of talking for them.”

Between the media's thirst for sensational headlines and the presidential surrogates misquoting, misstating, and generally twisting the opponent's words into a political pretzel, we end up with a lot of words with little useful meaning. All too often political campaigns end up being to quote Shakespeare "full of sound and fury; signifying nothing."

Will the Democrats Lemming-like Behavior Hurt Obama's Bid to Become President?

Lemmings are small rodents that live in or near the Arctic. Under certain circumstances large migrating groups will reach a cliff overlooking the ocean. They will stop until the urge to press on causes them to jump off the cliff and start swimming, sometimes to exhaustion and death. Political lemmings, the humankind, emulate their rodent cousins when it comes to key elections. Rather than support their party's candidate, they find reasons why it would be better for them not to vote at all, and thereby let the opposition candidate win. While not totally comparable, there is a politically suicidal behavioral element in what my mother used to call, "Biting off your nose to spite your face."

A number of groups that strongly supported Senator Clinton are threatening not to vote for Senator Obama. If you were a Senator Clinton supporter would you really want Senator McCain to be the next president of the United States? You've got to be kidding! Some Democratic women who are threatening not to vote for Obama are making it a feminist issue. I participated in a discussion regarding this on another blog. Is it possible for a woman to call herself a feminist and vote for Senator McCain, a man who allegedly called his wife a four letter word that I won't put in my post. Of even greater importance (one would think), is whether a feminist would would want one or more new conservative Supreme Court justices added so there will be an absolute majority on the Supreme Court who will tell the women of America that they don't have control over their bodies.

This type of lemminglike behavior has been seen before, but never more odiously then in the 1968 presidential election. Many of my liberal friends said there was no difference between Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey. When I challenged their sanity, they accused me of political naiveté and questioned whether I was really a Democrat. As we all know, Nixon won the election and American democracy was severely threatened. The Nixon Cabinet was the first one since the Ulysses S. Grant administration to be able to hold cabinet meetings in prisons. I had moved by the time of the Watergate travesty and was not able to look my old friends in the eye. I may appear to be digressing, but I'm trying to emphasize the point that rational thinking can often be completely discarded in a heated emotions of political posturing. Stay tuned, this will only get more interesting.

Coming next: the Presidential candidacy of Senator McCain and Republican Lemming-like Behavior.

In Defense of Hillary Clinton

Defending Hillary Clinton at this point in time is an extremely difficult endeavor, akin to my guarding Kobe Bryant in a game of basketball. I believe that somewhere amongst the various versions of Hillary displayed during the past years, there is a Hillary that is very bright, very capable, and could make a good president of the U.S. Unfortunately, as I alluded to in the previous sentence, we have been presented with different Hillarys and it is difficult to know which one is real. A significant group of people detest her to a degree that is almost unfathomable. Thus, when she makes a “mistake” or utters anything that could be interpreted negatively, a nuclear arsenal of verbal vituperation is launched at her creating a mental radioactive wasteland that makes it hard to render a fair judgment of what she said.

The most recent nuclear verbal uproar was in regard to her mentioning Robert Kennedy’s assassination in June1968 when he was a candidate for the presidency of the U.S. A wide range of groups were horrified by her mentioning this fact. Various interpretations of “what she was really saying” spewed forth like foul smelling volcanic lava. Something that should have been a major factor in determining how people reacted to what she said, but which was largely overlooked, was the reaction of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. He was not offended by what she said, and this should not be overlooked because he is a Hillary Supporter. Unfortunately, at this point in her career, and her bid for presidency of the U.S., each person’s individual feelings are paramount in interpreting what she said or did.

Let’s get back to the problem of the multiple Hillarys. Recently, I watched a documentary of former president Harry S. Truman. It seemed that once he decided to campaign for the presidency in 1948 he had already formulated what he wanted to say. When he arose each day on his famous train trip across America he spoke from his heart without hesitation. He did not have to figure out who he was going to be that day and what he was going to say. Therein lays the dilemma for most people who have run for president and other political positions since that time. They get up each day and have to figure out who they are going to be and what they are going to say to the people on the day’s agenda. This is certainly Hillary’s dilemma as is it Senator McCain’s, but to a lesser degree Senator Obama's. When Hillary is at her best, speaking from her heart, she has been able to establish a somewhat improbable connection with the working class of America. At such times she resonates well because there is less political artifice going through her head. Unfortunately, much of the time she is constantly trying to figure out what to say, how to say it, and who to say it to. This is when she ends up in deep caca. One particular instance was when she casually stated she would wipe out Iran when questioned what her response would be to Iranian nuclear aggression. I believe she was trying to impress on the interviewer, and the audience, that she would be tough leader. Unfortunately, this was a horrendous way of making her point.

Another factor hampering her ability to come forth as a consistent person is her association with her husband Bill Clinton. There is nothing genuine about Bill because everything he says and does is calculated for a desired effect. This does not make Bill unique as a major political figure but he has served as a poor model for Hillary. The Clintons as a single psychological entity have developed their own narcissistic sense of personal entitlement.

I’m not sure how well I defended Hillary, but it was a tough job and someone had to do it. No doubt James Spader portraying Alan Shore on Boston Legal would have done better. But that is fiction and I have been dealing with the reality that the Hillary who could have been a good president has long since been subsumed by political calculation, blind ambition, and the belief that she was entitled to be president. As Americans have learned to our dismay being the best presidential candidate has little to do with becoming the president. Shame on us.