America's forthcoming Presidential Elections presents a dilemma for Democrats. Will they push for the country's first Woman President, or the country's first Black President? The predominantly white and conservative American Electorate may just go over these firsts and pick the Republican's offer of the first twice divorced catholic President.
The irony here is that Democrats are the supposed liberals in this contest, and yet it is the Republican front runner that lives a swinger's lifestyle, being thrice married (All were catholic rites), twice divorced, one known extramarital affair ( not with his 3rd wife) while with his second wife.
Democrats, on the other hand may grapple with the perception that Hillary would evoke fears of the return to the dark days of the Clinton years at the White House among voters; or with the obvious inexperience of a young President (much like JFK) with institutions such as the Pentagon, Congress, CIA, NSA, Joint Chiefs of Staff and the FBI. The additional burden of being black may be heavier than being a woman when it comes to discrimination. Even if Democrats choose both as their bets for the top two positions, whoever runs for President or Vice-President will be a "first" that may not be palatable to their predominantly conservative electorate.
The Republican Party's best bet is still Rudy Giuliani, but his claim to being a terrorist expert ahead of the pack may be bogus. Besides, anti-terrorism as a foundation of a campaign may not be as critical to voters, noting the humongous excesses and abuses committed in its name.
Whatever issues they support or advocacies they espouse is basically for America's interest. It has nothing to do with us. We only have to guard against what they do that could affect us and the rest of the world. Obviously, a great majority of Americans do not know what their country and its policymakers impose on other countries, even if it runs counter to their democratic rhetoric. The problem is, we get news stories on TV about their statements and positions on issues that are global in nature. As for me, my cow died years ago, so I don't need their bull!
Harrrrrrwk...Twoooophe'...Ting!
Democrats, on the other hand may grapple with the perception that Hillary would evoke fears of the return to the dark days of the Clinton years at the White House among voters; or with the obvious inexperience of a young President (much like JFK) with institutions such as the Pentagon, Congress, CIA, NSA, Joint Chiefs of Staff and the FBI. The additional burden of being black may be heavier than being a woman when it comes to discrimination. Even if Democrats choose both as their bets for the top two positions, whoever runs for President or Vice-President will be a "first" that may not be palatable to their predominantly conservative electorate.
The Republican Party's best bet is still Rudy Giuliani, but his claim to being a terrorist expert ahead of the pack may be bogus. Besides, anti-terrorism as a foundation of a campaign may not be as critical to voters, noting the humongous excesses and abuses committed in its name.
Whatever issues they support or advocacies they espouse is basically for America's interest. It has nothing to do with us. We only have to guard against what they do that could affect us and the rest of the world. Obviously, a great majority of Americans do not know what their country and its policymakers impose on other countries, even if it runs counter to their democratic rhetoric. The problem is, we get news stories on TV about their statements and positions on issues that are global in nature. As for me, my cow died years ago, so I don't need their bull!
Harrrrrrwk...Twoooophe'...Ting!
No comments:
Post a Comment