Observing the nature of politics we can realize that though some things have changed much has remained the same. We may have political ads televised in color and candidates quickly boarding a private plane to get to a speaking engagement, and with advancement of technology we can view debates via the internet or in its televised version. The avenues that engage the public in the presidential campaigns may have progressed, however the underhanded tactics used to seal a victory still persist. All candidates are guilty of adopting certain issues or carefully concocting a character that is favorable with many factions to garner votes.
This popularity contest continues until they tangle their words and commit an obvious blunder as reported in Senator Obama’s case and a few weeks earlier in Senator Clinton’s embellishment of her foreign travels. With candidates battling constantly for the spotlight we must wonder who they are and who will they represent? With their lips they charm their audience and unite them behind a specific cause but do they believe in the words that escape those rapidly moving mouthpieces. Taking a page from Susan Dunn’s depiction of Jefferson in Jefferson’s Second Revolution we can still view politics especially the campaigning process before the presidential election as the “game of opportunism” (Dunn 183).
In an article reported by Alessandra Stanley of the NY Times, it is quite amusing to see Senator Clinton taking full advantage of Senator Obama’s obvious blunder in Pennsylvania. Senator Clinton’s uses the elitist charges against Senator Obama to solidify her character as being an advocate for the everyday man. She compared Senator Obama to the likes of John Kerry and Al Gore who are commonly referred to as candidates of the upper echelon. During the CNN hosted event in Harrisburg, PA, the question of faith was debated. Though both candidates spoke at length about their commitment to their faith; Senator Clinton again attacked Senator Obama by using references of both Gore and Kerry who although aligning themselves as men of faith were not viewed as such by large segments of the electorate . Instead they were seen as men who “did not really understand or relate to or frankly respect their ways of life”. Senator Clinton was on role in PA, many claimed she positioned herself as a saint; she was quoted as follows “I hope I will never, ever find myself being defensive or abrupt and dismissive of people who agree with me… I regret that often happens in politics, and maybe it’s because oftentimes the decision making process is so exhausting”. Ironically she never looked less tired.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/us/politics/14watch.html?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/13/us/politics/13campaign.html?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/12/us/politics/12campaign.html?
This popularity contest continues until they tangle their words and commit an obvious blunder as reported in Senator Obama’s case and a few weeks earlier in Senator Clinton’s embellishment of her foreign travels. With candidates battling constantly for the spotlight we must wonder who they are and who will they represent? With their lips they charm their audience and unite them behind a specific cause but do they believe in the words that escape those rapidly moving mouthpieces. Taking a page from Susan Dunn’s depiction of Jefferson in Jefferson’s Second Revolution we can still view politics especially the campaigning process before the presidential election as the “game of opportunism” (Dunn 183).
In an article reported by Alessandra Stanley of the NY Times, it is quite amusing to see Senator Clinton taking full advantage of Senator Obama’s obvious blunder in Pennsylvania. Senator Clinton’s uses the elitist charges against Senator Obama to solidify her character as being an advocate for the everyday man. She compared Senator Obama to the likes of John Kerry and Al Gore who are commonly referred to as candidates of the upper echelon. During the CNN hosted event in Harrisburg, PA, the question of faith was debated. Though both candidates spoke at length about their commitment to their faith; Senator Clinton again attacked Senator Obama by using references of both Gore and Kerry who although aligning themselves as men of faith were not viewed as such by large segments of the electorate . Instead they were seen as men who “did not really understand or relate to or frankly respect their ways of life”. Senator Clinton was on role in PA, many claimed she positioned herself as a saint; she was quoted as follows “I hope I will never, ever find myself being defensive or abrupt and dismissive of people who agree with me… I regret that often happens in politics, and maybe it’s because oftentimes the decision making process is so exhausting”. Ironically she never looked less tired.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/us/politics/14watch.html?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/13/us/politics/13campaign.html?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/12/us/politics/12campaign.html?
No comments:
Post a Comment