During the last few days of the political landscape, I’ve noticed many things – some bad but mostly good.
The first thing I noticed is the skewed perception of reality our “news” gives us.
As most of you know I don’t watch much television. I don’t watch it because I enjoy it and if I enjoy something I dedicate a lot of time to it, so I don’t watch it mostly to save myself the habit of being extra lazy. Because I don’t watch much television, though, I think I might have an “outsider’s insight” on certain areas of advertising, ploy and misinformation simply because it is not rhetoric to me. If I see something on the news, it’s actually “news” to me.
But recently I saw some woman talk about some “proposed” Clinton/Obama ticket which, uh, seems weird in itself except to make it even weirder she said about Clinton whether she should let him sit on the “back of the bus” of her presidential ticket.
I don’t know which part of this statement bothers me most: an inappropriate smear remark that is rooted in bigotry or the simple fact that it is not Clinton’s “ticket” – nobody has the ticket. And why would it be assumed it would be Clinton /Obama and not Obama /Clinton? Oh, because Obama has never suggested that he’d like to join forces with Clinton.
But I could maybe excuse this woman’s ignorance if it was the first time I’d seen a blantant misrepresentation of the news duplicated and replicated at the speed of light (srsly!). Last week Justin & I witnessed a falsification of “news” on CNN regarding some gossip originally found in the ENQUIRER – is this really the level of competence we’re allowing to be given as information by which we are expected to make informed, critical decisions?
I suppose it is… I just wonder how it got to be that way.
I am a firm believer in the equal opportunity of all people, regardless of economic status, race, sex, sexuality or religious beliefs. I will be the first one to support the right person for any suitable job regardless of background so long as the foreground is sturdy and competent. I would not support someone who was wrong for the job just because of his or her ecconomic status, race, sex, sexuality or religious beliefs, though sometimes one or more of those qualities may qualify a person better fit for a position.
I’m not talking specifically about the upcoming Presidential elections. I’m talking about any position and all positions in our society from the bottom up. Specifically for our government, being an Independent, I would vote for a Republican if he or she were right for the position. Even if it were a White Republican male, who, generally speaking, is nowhere near my normal social demographic or someone I could imagine jumping up and saying, “Yes! I’ll support you!” But if he were the right person, I absolutely would.
So it comes to Clinton. She should by all statistical reasonability be my Presidential Pick, which got me to thinking about one more thing.
In every election we’ve had since I’ve been old enough to vote, I have not voted “for” anyone, instead, I’ve only voted “against” others.
The first election in which I was able to participate was 1992. I voted for Perot. I was 20 and I didn’t know any better. It’s okay, my older and wiser countrymen took care of me and elected Clinton. He’s not who I would have wanted anyway, but I suppose he was the best out of the three options.
The second election in which I was able to participate was, aptly, 1996: Clinton vs. Bob Dole. Wow, so that was pretty much an easy win for Clinton. He was already doing a seemingly acceptable job, read: keeping it fairly quiet on the homefront. He let some pretty bad things happen (Kosovo, Rwanda), initiated some shady programs (NAFTA, Welfare “reform”) but also did some good things (left the country in a pretty good place overall). And against Dole? That’s all the ‘pubs could work out? Srsly. So on to Pepsi commercials Dole goes and back in the oval office Clinton goes. I don’t even think I bothered voting. But if I did, I didn’t vote “for” Clinton, I voted “against” Dole.
Then on to more recent elections: 2000. I was doing everything in my power to vote “against” Bush, even trying to convince my liberal social circle to take another look at Gore because Bush is THAT bad and Nader is only furthering Bush’s ability. So again, voting against, not for. I even LIKED Nader and wished I could have voted for him.
2004.. well, obviously, against, against, against.
So here it is now, it’s 2008 and finally – for the very first time ever – my choice is crystal clear. I am voting FOR Obama, not against anyone, but FOR progress, FOR equality, FOR profitability, FOR change, FOR PEACE.
And every time I hear a sorry-pants down-in-the-polls candidate slam Obama, I think to myself, “well, this is just another example of why I’m not supporting you.” Enough with the smear; enough with the chatter and really, enough with the Ego already.
I’m supporting the candidate that I believe is the best person for the position. Not because he is of color. Not because he’s a man. Not for any other reason than him being exactly the right person.