The US Election race is over-stepping the boundaries of so-called ‘dirty politics’ these days. In the red corner we’ve got the fatigued old man who can’t make up his mind on key issues (such as abortion), flanked by his thicker-than-three-short-planks Alaskan VP candidate who still thinks the world is 6000 years old. In the blue corner we have a highly respectable and motivational speaker for change, accompanied by an expert of political debate.
And what is the only ‘dirt’ that the Right has on Obama? … he smoked! Oh Lord Almighty better keep this guy out of the White House, he might erm… stain the walls? So what if a former member of The Weathermen guerrilla group funded one of his campaigns? The only question that matters is if Obama is blowing up anything.
He’s frequently labeled the ‘Black Candidate’ – when the truth is he’s mixed race – he’s as black as he is white. Imagine if you will if there was a homosexual candidate for President. What then? Would they be referred to as the ‘Gay Candidate’? Not that any of this matters anyway: all that matters of a candidate are their policies and their integrity.
When’s people are being told not to vote for a candidate because their middle name is Hussein, you know there’s something wrong. When you are frequently told that Obama hates white people and is a hard-line communist, you know there’s something wrong. How are the broadcasters saying this tripe still with a job? Maybe the constant declaration that Obama is ‘black’ is a desperate attempt for the Right to gain racist voters that still dwell in the scummy backyards of the South.
Obama constantly promises ‘Change’, but can he really deliver? His stance on education is hindered by his endorsement by the National Education Association – an organization that has a bad track record in supporting education reform. His stance on healthcare reform is also hindered by his aim to have the whole system funded by private business – which is damaging to the public sector. A whopping 67% of his campaign’s funding has come from corporations on Wall Street – they are going to want a healthy return for their devotion to him.
The match seems a dead cert, but why can’t the voters see through the shenanigans that are the Republican Party’s candidacy? – A candidacy who can’t even agree on the cause of global warming, let alone on key social issues that the Right hold ever-so dear. Everybody knows that Palin only got the hot seat as a ploy to get the women’s vote, as well as the Bible Belt’s confidence. It certainly wasn’t for her intellect! Her idea of international diplomacy is being able to ‘see’ Russia from her house (even though it is a good few hundred miles away from the country).
Let’s face it, if Palin had a penis and had never touched a Bible in her life, she’d still be playing hockey in the tundra of Alaska. Sarah Palin is definitely all of the grossness that goes with a beauty pageant, minus the world peace. There is so much going against Palin it’s untrue, like how she thinks Putin is still Russia’s President, and how she really, really, really has to do her homework before sitting down for an interview – disturbing echoes of Bush’s infamous inability to name the President of India can be heard ringing from the hills of Wasilla.
The support for change, and for Barack Obama is clear, particularly in the British Press, and so it should be. But will the voters and the hype stand true on election day?
November 4th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Could we have that article a bit more one-sided please? I didn’t quite grasp who you think should win the election. I know this is in the ‘opinion’ section of the website but come on.
I think it’s pretty funny how you’ve scorned on the American politicians for “Over-stepping the boundaries of so-called ‘dirty politics’ these days” and then gone on to use terms such as ‘fatigued old man’ and “Thicker-than-three-short planks” than made constant reference to Palin believeing in God, which, by the sounds of it, is the worst thing anyone could ever do in your opinion.
The simple fact of the matter is that everyone knows the Republicans lack a huge amount of depth in their policies and the only choice for President should be Barack Obama. If you’d set out an argument which looked at the policies of both, then you would have made a clear and fair (and very obvious) argument for why Obama should get the nation’s vote. But instead, you’ve just spouted one-sided left-wing drivel for over 600 words and essentially engaged in a massively hypocritical mud-slinging match; a method of campaigning which you crticised heavily at the start of your piece.
A fantastic peice of fair and informative journalism.If only you were right-wing you could write for the Daily Mail.
November 4th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
I would imagine having a vice-president who believes the earth is 6000 years old is more worrying…
November 5th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Winston Churchill believed the Earth was 6000 years old and it didn’t seem to do him any harm when he was PM. Nor did it do any harm to Clement Atlee, arguably one of the greatest leaders this country has ever had.
Across the pond there was Roosevelt, a man who steered his country from economic collapse into a decade of prosperity, for whom his ‘faith’ never seemed to get in the way of getting the job done. And then of course there’s Abraham Lincoln, the man who oversaw the abolition of the slave trade. His religion was never an issue.
Let’s actually look at the policies and make a judgement from there eh, instead of (like usual) just making personal attacks on the candidates. Let’s not celebrate Obama’s victory because he is black, or because McCain is Republican, or because Palin is a Christian or whatever. Let’s just be pleased that the candidate with the best poilcies and the best ideas for the future has been elected.
Don’t worry, you’ll have the chance to sling some more mud in four years time when there’s another election.
November 6th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
It iss not her christianity or religion *per se* that folk have an issue with, it’s her wanting to promote the untested belief of creationism (in place of the easily tested observations on any organic system evolving by natural Selection within the education system)along with her anti-homosexual, anti-ethnic minority, anti-women and scaling back of women’s body rights views that many baulk at.
And they are not ad hominem attacks, they are attacks on her proposed policies. Surely no one is naieve enough to believe that the seperation of church and state would have continued under Palin’s influence
QED.
November 6th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Any leader can believe the moon is not old, the eath is 6000 years old, Dinosaurs are placed on earth to ‘test our faith’ if they like, *as long as they keep it to themselves and do not impose this opinion on others or the populace (at least without many Academic references, and no, scripture doesn’t count as testable evidence, it has to be repeatable).