Sunday, July 06, 2008
In Defense of General Clark
Sometimes things just tick me off. For example, when General Clark said that being held prisoner of war doesn't qualify somebody to be the President, he was simply stating a fact. All sorts of people have been prisoners of war, some of them probably borderline idiots, some of them geniuses. Either way, having been shot down and held prisoner does not in any way involve any skills or activities that you need to be the President. That is nothing against Mr. McCain, either. He's not disqualified because of that experience either. It simply has nothing to do with whether he'd be a good President. It shows that he can take a tough situation and come out smiling, which is good, but hardly sufficient for running the country.
Well, that isn't what ticks me off. What ticks me off was the media reaction, as if it was terribly politically incorrect to suggest such a thing, followed by Barak Obama repudiating Clark. Why? Obama didn't say it in the first place, and besides, it's true. If you're really a new voice, Mr. Obama, how about sticking to the facts as they are and not tending to the spin so much?
That sounds flip, but consider if you will, Al Gore. If you've seen him at all since he lost to that other guy in 2000, you'll have noticed that he seems different now that he's not running for office. He looks happier, for one thing (an Oscar and a Nobel Prize will do that, I suppose.) And also he seems personable, funny, and at ease with himself. Imagine if, in his campaign, he had ditched his spin-loving advisers and just spoken the way he speaks in his appearances today. Why, we'd know for sure what would have happened if Gore had been President on 9/11. Either total disaster, or it wouldn't have happened in the first place, according to the fringes. But my point is, Mr. Gore would have been elected, and the past seven years would have unfolded differently.
So, if you're listening Mr. Obama, and Mr. McCain too for that matter, if you want my vote, ditch those fools telling you how to manipulate the press and speak plainly and honestly, the way Americans are supposed to talk. That would be a breath of fresh air, no matter what your politics might be.
Well, that isn't what ticks me off. What ticks me off was the media reaction, as if it was terribly politically incorrect to suggest such a thing, followed by Barak Obama repudiating Clark. Why? Obama didn't say it in the first place, and besides, it's true. If you're really a new voice, Mr. Obama, how about sticking to the facts as they are and not tending to the spin so much?
That sounds flip, but consider if you will, Al Gore. If you've seen him at all since he lost to that other guy in 2000, you'll have noticed that he seems different now that he's not running for office. He looks happier, for one thing (an Oscar and a Nobel Prize will do that, I suppose.) And also he seems personable, funny, and at ease with himself. Imagine if, in his campaign, he had ditched his spin-loving advisers and just spoken the way he speaks in his appearances today. Why, we'd know for sure what would have happened if Gore had been President on 9/11. Either total disaster, or it wouldn't have happened in the first place, according to the fringes. But my point is, Mr. Gore would have been elected, and the past seven years would have unfolded differently.
So, if you're listening Mr. Obama, and Mr. McCain too for that matter, if you want my vote, ditch those fools telling you how to manipulate the press and speak plainly and honestly, the way Americans are supposed to talk. That would be a breath of fresh air, no matter what your politics might be.
Labels: Politics, Social Commentary
