I am really not impressed by this election report. It’s not the results that bother me at all: though I have my preferences, I’d be reasonably content with Clinton, Edwards, or Obama as president. Or Richardson. I wouldn’t be happy with any of the Republicans, but better McCain than Huckabee even though I lost any vestige of respect for the former when he gave in on torture.
What bothers me about the article is that it’s all about style and not substance. I suppose that’s par for the course, but being outside the US I’ve been shielded from a lot of it. I guess you have to mention Obama’s color and Clinton’s sex (well, you don’t have to, but they always do), but in general I’ve been happy that this election has treated both as serious candidates, not the sort of dancing bear Ferarro was. Partly it bothers me that this is all about campaign strategy and not one iota about Presidential job strategy, but I think what encapsluates it for me is where they refer to healthcare as Clinton’s “signature issue”. No, sorry, it’s not. Red was Nancy Reagan’s signature color. A white suit was Mark Twain’s signature costume. For Hilary herself, “I am so ready to lead” is becoming a signature line. But candidates do not have signature issuesv- at least not serious candidates.
“Signature” implies matters of style, not substance. Hilary is not my favorite of the candidates but I give her the respect of assuming that she has made healthcare an important part of her platform either because she thinks it’s a crucial issue or because she think voters do, not just because she thought it would get attention in a campaign (though no doubt that’s also one of her reasons). I expect fashion magazines will shortly chime in onthe candidates’ signature styles, and that’s fine. I don’t really mind it in the mainstream press, either. But when you’re trying to write the definitive article on New Hampshire election result, maybe it would be nice to talk about actual issues.
Issues? During an election? But…but…what about ‘important’ things like candidates’ choice of breakfast cereal or whether 17 years ago they said they didn’t like Sir Mix-a-lot’s ‘I Like Big Butts’ and now must face the wrath of both Mix-a-lot fans and constituents with big butts? And if they’re partial to Lucky Charms does that mean leprechauns will get preferential treatment? Feh.
You are sooooo lucky to be on the other side of the planet. ~LA
You’ve hit on a couple of key points, which I consider very good for someone who isn’t here. The first, of course, is that we’re only seeing how well they campaign; we haven’t got a hint of how well they can perform in office. I hate the idea of sitting through a term of a far-seeing president who can’t get anything through Congress.
The other point is that we just can’t tell when someone is saying what s/he actually thinks, as opposed to what they think we want to hear. It has taken me fifty years to learn (and I still haven’t really learned it!) not to believe everything someone tells me.