Peter Dreier's interesting blog post proposes that Hillary should be the next Ted Kennedy - arguably the most effective progressive in Congress, even more effective in his office than his two deceased brothers were in theirs. It's the old ego vs. public good debate. Dreier believes Hillary to be a "closet liberal" who is "triangulating centrist" positions to position herself for the highest office in the land. Which could end up to be a failed ego trip more than a successful accomplishment on behalf of the poor, the disenfranchised, women and minorities. As President, she'd have to continue triangulating for the rich. Obviously, she's been willing to forego the liberal stance to get in the limelight and win over the powerful voices for the powerful.
But what about Obama? For a man with a much more liberal record than Hillary, he gets more conservative kudos than her - or at least, visibly. And the Obama win in Iowa was nothing less than electrifying, thirst-quenching. It's a great relief to know that the people do have some power, and are not swayed by pundits touting "inevitability". But would Obama have better luck standing for the downtrodden? That's a hard call - no wonder elections are won on guts.
Showing posts with label barak obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label barak obama. Show all posts
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Sunday, February 4, 2007
Battlestar Hypocrita
It seems the Buzz of the Day is an impending Battle between "heavyweights" Hillary Clinton and John McCain, something viewed as inevitable by a mysterious Consensus of Power Brokers, aka Powers That Be (God forbid). Yet no one seems particularly enthusiastic about either of them. Except those who partake of that Mysterious Rite of Conformity wherein the Resume ranks supreme, and character means Building a Power Base. But truth always bucks trends, and hypocrisy, contrary to popular belief, is a powerful people-repellent. Which is what's wrong with that impending much-hyped Battle. These two candidates are accomplished hypocrites.
And that's what the office of the President these days seems to be all about. It's about the race to be Hypocrite-in-Chief (HIC or hic). How would the "founding fathers" have fared in today's political environment? The answer - fallen flat. None of them had the proper Power Base. They couldn't please two opposites at the same time. They weren't adept at raising campaign funds - although Ben Franklin was a pretty astute, and successful, businessman. But they probably wouldn't have been fond of PACs or power lunches or influence peddling. They would have abhorred the idea of playing Policeman to the World, even more the idea of taking sides in other people's conflicts, unless there was a threat to our security.
Our meddling ways have led to 9/11, not some pre-existing Islamic agenda. The solutions may not be obvious, but the causes are - unless one loves wearing blinders. And that is precisely what all politicians - if they want to succeed in politics these days - must do. They must say one thing, and do another. They must promise the universe, and deliver black holes. They must make plans, and a cover story to hide those plans under. When they are exposed as liars, they must stick to the lie until death - political or otherwise - do them part. They must be all things to all people - in words - and nothing to all but a few favored folks or interests - in actions. And John McCain is the hypocrite par excellence. He is for whatever will make him look good. He is what he wants you to think he is, as long as the camera is on. Backstage, God only knows what he stands for: himself, of course! Hillary may seem more complex, but she, too, plays the same game. The good news is, expedience works. Hillary is hated as a wild-eyed liberal, except that she is not liberal at all. What was that Iraq vote all about? What was her stance in behalf of the Bush Administration's lies all about? Expediency. It worked. She's a "front runner."
The bad news is that people have brains. And something in the human soul hates a hypocrite. Neither of these candidates deserves even a nomination, let alone that prized election result. The bad news for them is good news for us - maybe. But then again - think about this: Bush got elected, fraud stuff aside, because he LOOKS like he's for real! He really came across to many of the common people as genuine - "shoot straight", he said. They bought it. The bad news is, inside was a load of crap. Better luck next time.
For God's sake, who's afraid of Barak Obama? He may be brilliant, eloquent, and he may have a short resume ... and he may not have the expertise in policy-making that politicos think we need in a president, but he does have a conscience. And he is not a coward. And he's not a hypocrite. And did George W's dad's mile-long resume get us what we want? What about Cheney's policy expertise? Did I say people have brains? So don't just pray for honest rain, for God's sake - vote!
And that's what the office of the President these days seems to be all about. It's about the race to be Hypocrite-in-Chief (HIC or hic). How would the "founding fathers" have fared in today's political environment? The answer - fallen flat. None of them had the proper Power Base. They couldn't please two opposites at the same time. They weren't adept at raising campaign funds - although Ben Franklin was a pretty astute, and successful, businessman. But they probably wouldn't have been fond of PACs or power lunches or influence peddling. They would have abhorred the idea of playing Policeman to the World, even more the idea of taking sides in other people's conflicts, unless there was a threat to our security.
Our meddling ways have led to 9/11, not some pre-existing Islamic agenda. The solutions may not be obvious, but the causes are - unless one loves wearing blinders. And that is precisely what all politicians - if they want to succeed in politics these days - must do. They must say one thing, and do another. They must promise the universe, and deliver black holes. They must make plans, and a cover story to hide those plans under. When they are exposed as liars, they must stick to the lie until death - political or otherwise - do them part. They must be all things to all people - in words - and nothing to all but a few favored folks or interests - in actions. And John McCain is the hypocrite par excellence. He is for whatever will make him look good. He is what he wants you to think he is, as long as the camera is on. Backstage, God only knows what he stands for: himself, of course! Hillary may seem more complex, but she, too, plays the same game. The good news is, expedience works. Hillary is hated as a wild-eyed liberal, except that she is not liberal at all. What was that Iraq vote all about? What was her stance in behalf of the Bush Administration's lies all about? Expediency. It worked. She's a "front runner."
The bad news is that people have brains. And something in the human soul hates a hypocrite. Neither of these candidates deserves even a nomination, let alone that prized election result. The bad news for them is good news for us - maybe. But then again - think about this: Bush got elected, fraud stuff aside, because he LOOKS like he's for real! He really came across to many of the common people as genuine - "shoot straight", he said. They bought it. The bad news is, inside was a load of crap. Better luck next time.
For God's sake, who's afraid of Barak Obama? He may be brilliant, eloquent, and he may have a short resume ... and he may not have the expertise in policy-making that politicos think we need in a president, but he does have a conscience. And he is not a coward. And he's not a hypocrite. And did George W's dad's mile-long resume get us what we want? What about Cheney's policy expertise? Did I say people have brains? So don't just pray for honest rain, for God's sake - vote!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
