I'm disappointed, disheartened and downright pissed that the likely names on the November presidential ballot will be McCain and Obama. Out of the circuses that were the Republican and Democrat primaries, these two are the very best our country can come up with?
If my feet were held to the fire, I'd admit to being a very conservative Democrat or a very liberal Republican. I would have been satisfied with an intelligent, youngish though experienced, ethical, truth-telling, visionary candidate of either party, so I'm fairly sure I can write this without bias to either donkey or elephant.
Even though I fit the demographic of the majority of HRC's supporters, my admiration for her waned and wilted as soon as I read her autobiography "Living History". I honestly believed in the "vast right wing conspiracy" that drew so much energy and attention away from the promise of Bill's years in the White House.... until I read the book. There is a vein of dishonesty, deception and evasion that runs through the book, particularly in the chapters having to do with the very investigations that were so relentlessly pursued. I probably couldn't point to specifics, but the book itself left an impression of dishonesty surrounding all things Hillary... however, she got my vote in the California primary, not "for Hillary" but absolutely against Obamarama, and in November, there's going to be at least one write-in vote for Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
I'm not sure how or when it happened, but the O has certainly become the media's darling boy, and, given the power and influence of selective reporting, a coronation looks ever more inevitable. The problem here is not the mindless "Barack-star" adulation that has put him solidly in the nominee's seat. The problem is the lack of scrutiny and investigative reporting that he seems to be enjoying, at least at this stage of the game.
If either McCain or HRClinton had changed positions as lithely and speedily as O has done, we would have had weeks of it in the media. Obama plays the expedience game like a master -- like a master from Chicago, in fact, and he's not held to accountability by his loving and forgiving press. His gaffes, which he usually and immediately blames on his staff, are reported the day they occur and may turn up once or twice more, but they are never treated with the firestorm of blather that have roasted other candidates.
Can you imagine what we would have heard from the media had HRC or McCain removed Muslim women from the diversity photo showcase at more than one of their speeches? Can you hear the outcries if one of their spiritual advisers had crossed the line of reason as did Rev. Wright? How many crosses would they have been nailed to had they changed their positions on special interest and campaign financing, terror surveillance, the handgun ban, the Cuban embargo, decriminalization of marijuana, illegal immigration, troop withdrawal from Iraq, NAFTA... just to name a few. (There are so many links to these flipflops I didn't include them... Google has them for you, if you want to check.)
Even in its minimal reporting of the above switcharoonies, the press universally attributed them as being raised for political agendas by either Hillary or the Republican opposition -- instead of the media itself doing the straight-up reporting we should expect from fair coverage (if such a thing still exists).
In checking for examples of the above, I found a number of articles written by (obviously) his friends in the press who attributed these turnarounds to "something candidates normally do at the beginning of a campaign." Right. I understand. It's peachy if the candidate is the one sailing down the aisle toward coronation -- it's a scandal if any other candidate does it.
I don't like Obama. I haven't liked him from his first explosion onto the media stage, and nothing I've seen since has changed my opinion. Maybe I've watched my DVD collection of The West Wing too often, but I feel the office of the President carries with it a gravitas that is distinctly missing in a slick, wiggly empty suit who has been catapulted to his position ONLY through his articulate speechifying, his behind-the-scenes political ties, and his ability to raise and spend millions of dollars.
He may be uber-intelligent but his life experience hasn't, in my opinion, prepared him for the awesome responsibilities of the Oval Office. Some say that's a good thing. Some say it's the only way to effect real change in Washington. Some may have their heads lodged in a dark and claustrophobic canal, too. His presumptive nomination is, in my mind, the reflection of the worst our American culture... worshiping the young, the attractive, the charismatic celebrity -- the ultimate example of flash without substance. That may be okay for the latest pop tart, but it may have devastating consequences in this case.
I don't trust Obama. I think he'll do anything (ANYTHING) in his quest for the White House, and I think we've seen a bit of that already. Although I usually eschew the underbelly of politics when it comes to disclosing errant prior or current behavior, questionable ties or a penchant for espousing the position-of-the-day, I'm looking forward to what the Republicans come up with as they turn their considerable forces on their party's opponent. It sure as hell isn't going to come from normal press channels since Obamarama is the media's darling. I hope some brave reporter or some well-funded Republicans do the hard work of exposing his Chicago ties and the special interest money he's so adept at acquiring. In fact, I can't wait.