Don't Get Too Excited

[poliphilo]

In order to have a run at the Presidency of the USA you'll have had to eat a lot of crow and tread on a lot of fingers. Obama, Clinton, Romney, McCain- these are not nice people. 

And all of them- long since- will have ceased to have much to do with people like us- that is to say people without power or the hunger for power. The people they mostly consort with are those they can do deals with, those who can give them money or deliver support.

That's the nature of politics.

Whoever gets in they'll be beholden to the same baronial powers, in hock to the same military-industrial complex. It'll be nice to have a change of face at the top- and if that face turns out to be black or female it'll be a cheering indication of how social attitudes are changing- but that's all it'll be.

Comments

[halfmoon-mollie.livejournal.com]

the sad thing is, this is not the way our system was 'originally' designed. But, see, you have to have money in order to get into the race - and then of course, if you don't have money you have to get it from somewhere, so here are 'those you do deals with', etc.

People don't seem to realize it's just an illusion. I vote because it's my right and my duty, but I am under no illusions that the person I vote for - no matter WHO - will be much different from the last umpty nine presidents.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Has there ever been a president who was a man of moderate means? I know some of them- Lincoln for instance- started off life in log cabins, but was there ever one who wasn't seriously rich by the time he ran for office?

I don't know my history as well as I should

[halfmoon-mollie.livejournal.com]

There is so much posturing. Last time around, poor John Kerry got roasted for wearing his 'Dickies' jacket (Dickies is the name of a popular brand of outdoor clothing here) and you could see he'd probably never had one before (and oh, yes, "Who among us does not love NASCAR.") He tried too hard. I can remember watching the debates the first time Bill Clinton ran, and he was down in the audience shaking hands. Probably a lot of 'us' think that when someone seems approachable, that makes them someone who knows what it's like to not be rich.

People ALSO forget that the prez can say he'll change such and such, but unless he has the support of Congress, it ain't happening.

This has nothing to do with your question, Tony. The answer to that is "I don't know."

Re: I don't know my history as well as I should

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Bill Clinton obviously likes being round people (it probably energizes him) so all that glad-handing comes across as sincere. He's a lucky guy. He's got a charismatic and attractive personality and he doesn't have to work too hard to convince the crowds that he's one of them.

Politicians who don't have the "common touch" are better off not trying to fake it. We're wise now to the forced smiles and the publicity stunts. If you can't convincingly present yourself as a man of the people then go for an image that plays to your strengths. Our own Gordon Brown is a grim, unclubbable soul and wisely (most of the time) has chosen to project an image of rectitude and competence. It's not very exciting, but it has always worked for him.

A president of moderate means

[margaretarts.livejournal.com]

I can't verify this quickly, but I'd imagine Jimmy Carter wasn't terribly rich. Both the Carters and the press made quite a big deal of his homespun ways during his presidency. And I'm sure there have been others. Not many, but some. Grant? Eisenhower? These were generals who seem to have come to the presidency not by money but through fame as war heroes. Washington was a war general, too, but I think he was also filthy rich.

To those who feel Obama is not intelligent, I strongly suggest watching an in-depth debate or interview (I'm sure YouTube has many archived) and see how well Obama handles the issues when given the chance, when not lobbed silly questions about whether he is black enough or too white or whatever! He's not fluff; he is brilliant. The last time we had a brilliant, optimistic president was JFK, and I'd love to see that happen again.

Clinton may be smart, too, but it's a mean kind of smart that seems to want nothing better than to smash the other side. I keep thinking her main goal is to pay back the world in general and her husband specifically for the pain we have all caused her. (Excellent reason to become president, by the way. Look how well it's worked with younger Bush rebelling against his father.) She doesn't seem to care a fig about the American people overall, but I believe Obama does. Call it naive; okay, give us naive.

Re: A president of moderate means

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Washington was a big landowner- which means he had slaves- something that tends to get airbrushed out of the picture.

As far as the outside world is concerned any of the likely winners- Clinton, Obama or McCain- would be a huge improvement on GWB.

Re: A president of moderate means

[margaretarts.livejournal.com]

Yes, that fact does get airbrushed out. Washington brought some of his slaves from Virginia to his executive mansion (then in Philadelphia) to serve him as president! And he rotated them back to Virginia so they wouldn't get their freedom after 6 months, a Philadelphia law. Imagine their frustration.

Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose. The state of Virginia, until just a few years ago (2000?), refused to honor our national holiday, Martin Luther King Day, and instead called it Jackson-Lee-King Day. Two white Confederate generals celebrated in front of a black Civil Rights leader. A kick in the groin if there ever was one.

Not sure if McCain would be an improvement. He has a temper and an ego -- both enormous. He seems unable to control either.