When Do You Quit On Someone?
Obama is getting flack for not calling out his pastor for his comments over the years.
Clinton stood by Bill during the Lewinsky imbroglio.
McCain thinks that the President is just fine, despite his Iraq adventure, his siege against fundamental rights and ineffective management of just about everything else.
When I thought of this post idea, I intended to say something about how Obama is right for staying at his church despite Wright’s intemperate statements.
Then I got thinking, if someone is wrong and you are a public person, don’t you have an obligation to say something, publicly, or suffer being tarred by the person’s conduct?
I think that Obama gets a negative chit for not having said something years ago about Wright. But the same thing goes for Clinton and McCain.
I think we have to judge them by their associations and positions. I’m not too upset with Obama about Wright, who’s not an important person. I’m more upset with Clinton’s “stand by your man” stance with Bill. I’m incensed by McCain’s pandering to what he seems to see as the Republican base, what blogs and the media call “neocons,” though I hate that word.
Interestingly, I think Obama believes what he says about Wright. I don’t believe a word of what Clinton said about Bill and Monica back in the nineties; and, I don’t think that McCain really agrees with how Bush has mismanaged his presidency. And that tells me something about all three.
14 comments:
Watching Hillary and Obama on the news last night, my non-political wife said that Obama looks much more "presidential" than he did awhile back. The campaign experiences must be doing him some good, and I hope others can see the same thing in him down the road.
I bet that Wright is feeling down about what he's done to Obama with his intemperate sermons. It's not what you say, it's how you say it, oftentimes. Wright may have felt powerful delivering those lines, but he likely regrets them now. Like someone else will regret "Bomb, bomb, bomb - bomb, bomb, Iran".
Great, what now those seem to be our only choices
Most of Rev. Wright's controversial statements were made years before Obama entered the senate. Do we really need for every local politician to call a press conference after every sermon to announce what they did and didn't agree with?
I have the same feeling about Hillary. I personally think she stapled Bill's balls to his leg and laid down the law about how she was going to be president and how he was going to make it happen.
Then she removed the staples and now we have Bill.
I go to church (occasionally), but don't agree with the pastor on all things. Should I publically renounce him?
Or should I wait until I am elected to office?
I think we should evaluate the candidate primarily on what they themselves say and do, not on what every friend or associate says or does. But clearly, I am in the minority with this opinion, or we wouldn't be hearing about all this crap non-stop in the media.
Fermi, that's what Hillary wants you to think. I think more people are in agreement with than with her. But, hey, look at me trying to apply logic to politics again. I am such a dork sometimes.
Yeah, when Hillary came up with that stupid, "Who's better able to answer the phone at 3:00 AM?", all I could think was Hey! If the phone rang at 3:00 AM when Bill was Prez, it was surely Monica asking if he wanted to have phone sex...and how did Hillary handle that?
I'm not sure if this hits the point directly, but I find it interesting. This week in Sports Illustrated, there's an article on Darren McFadden and the NFL, and how they analyze draft picks (kind of how we analyze candidates). Well, Darren is from a family of 11 and a few have been drug addicts and 1 was in the Crips gang. Their point being that "You draft the kid, you marry his family."
So, I guess we need to look at everyone around the candidates, who counsel them, and include it in our decision.
If that is what Hillary wants me to think, it is not having the desired effect. I am a solid Obama supporter and a donor to his campaign. She lost any chance of me ever voting for her because of her actions during this primary.
We seem to have two camps here, illustrated by dilf on one side and Thomas/Pos on the other.
I think both have a point. We don't "call out" each and every person we disagree with each and every time they say or do something that we think is wrong.
But, all of us make decisions about people based on what we know about them which includes the company they keep. Though I don't follow it closely, dilf's reference to the NFL draft and Darren McFadden's baggage is, I think on point. McFadden has the uneviable position of following the Michael Vick scandals of the past few years. NFL teams knowing his backround wonder just what they will get for their bags full of money.
If I vote for Obama will I get an unacceptible tolerance for racial hatred? Is a vote for McCain a vote for a go along to get along kind of guy? Clinton? I definitely judge her based on her past associations and conduct, all of which I think add up to someone I don't want to see as the new President.
I liked the title of this and have been noodling on it since you posted it. Regardless if I'm a political candidate or a private person, the answer is: When they hurt you more than they help you. In Hillary's case, the political help outweighed the personal hurt. Which to me is pretty twisted, but then I'll never be a politician. In the case of the football player that Dilf mentioned, the team is taking a chance on a player who could help them to the Super Bowl but could also hurt them a la Vick. I tend to not quit people, even when it's obvious I should. But I've been quit by a couple of friends in recent years and this has helped me understand that a little better. Thank you.
I have no use for any of these jokers, and my voting Democratic in November will soley be for tactical reasons. I expect nothing from either Clinton or Obama.
When the major candidates agree with more than they disagree on, and the press makes discussion of the issues off-limits, this is what you can expect.
Politics are tricky. Once a person begins the process of running for office, can we trust what they say? Is there a point where they stop saying what they think and feel and start thinking more about what will get them elected? At that point, perhaps the only way to find out who they are is to look at those with whom they associate; at those from who they seek advice or guidance.
In DC, there are many jobs that require extensive background checks. A person can answer the original questions any way they choose - and most would do it in a way that would assure them the job. Yet, the check also includes interviews with people who knew them 5 to ten years ago. Is it fair? Is this an accurate portrait of the person in question?
Information about associates, friends, family members etc... though seemingly unrelated... can give a better picture of a person who is applying for or running for an office that requires popularity.
A person is not elected to the White house - his family and friends are elected to the White House - his religious leaders and drinking buddies. It is a package deal.
Post a Comment