I started blogging earlier this year because I wanted to vent about politics. A friend and I had been discussing the war in Iraq and he said, "Of course we bombed Iraq! All of the 9/11 highjackers were from Iraq! We needed to kick some ass!"
I just simply couldn't take it anymore. Because I'm surrounded by people in *real life* that don't pay much attention to the forces that shape our lives, that shape our country, I needed an outlet. Once I had my blog set up and discovered other bloggers, I very quickly realized that not only are there zillions of bloggers in touch with these forces, most, if not all are way smarter than me. And boy can they write. Yeesh!
My blog quickly morphed to other areas of interest, which is just fine because I'm having a blast. It's not that I completely avoid politics as most of you know who come here, (thank you!) but I try to do it in more of a fun way. Most of the political bloggers out there rely on research and evidence and have points to make, based on their research and evidence.
Me? It's just a gut feeling thing with me. Pure intuition. And while I'm completely comfortable around my house spouting off my opinions based on nothing but what I feel in my gut, I'm somewhat uncomfortable ranting and raving about it on my blog.
Until now. Allow me to rant for just a few minutes, ok? I may be way off base and if I am, well, fine. No one's right 100% of the time and God knows I can be as wrong as wearing white shoes before Memorial Day. But, allow me this rant and I'll feel much better. You may not. But, I will.
Lance has a post today about the 2008 election and the candidates that are gearing up for battle.
Lance writes, "Come the winter of 2007-2008, fanning out across Iowa and New Hampshire will be a Clinton, a Bush, a Romney, a Bayh, and, possibly, a Gore, all of them having had to greater or lesser degrees political careers predicated upon their famous last names."
Lance continues to explain that some are self-made successes and some have simply ridden the coattails of their famous fathers. And while connections have always mattered on the upward journey of the ladder of success, you normally have to prove yourself to keep ascending that ladder.
Lance writes, "George W. Bush's career is dismaying to contemplate because he is someone who has survived and thrived solely because of who his father was."
I agree Lance. And this is what aggravates me the most about George W. Bush. He has accomplished absolutely nothing on his own to show that he deserves one iota of what he has been given.
Hmmm. "What he has been given." Isn't that special?
So many things in his life should have gone on his *permanent record* that should have disqualified him from most career paths.
But Lance continues to write about the media's obsession with celebrity: "The media would be happiest if the next Presidential election starred Arnold Schwatzenegger going up against Tom Hanks. Since that won't happen, they seem to be pushing at us another celebrity slug-fest, one legacy
against another, and in that contest, I'm afraid Democrats are at a big disadvantage."
Lance, you are right. The media is completely obsessed with celebrity, and if a Democratic star doesn't develop, they will use the second string, and go the legacy route -- and you're right. We're at a disadvantage.
Which means we must, must, must nominate a Star. We must find a diamond in the rough and start polishing.
Our celebrities are not Stars, unfortunately, they are stiffs.
We desperately need someone with the *It* factor.
Um, Lance? When you are writing "Gore" -- do you mean: "Al Gore?" (Sorry Shakespeare's Sister, I know you love him) -- Al Gore? No way. No WAY! The media gives him *0* respect and in this celebrity age -- he's so done already. They were so unfair to him the first time -- can you imagine a
second? They can hang the same old lies and exaggerations around his neck this time AND call him a loser who didn't fight hard enough to boot. They'll show a ton of pictures of how he gained weight and grew a beard after 2000. No. He's got the brand name. But he's a stiff.
Clark? Clark should have it. With his military background in this day and age, he should've just taken off like a rocket in 2004. I was really pulling for him. But he didn't take off at all. For all his military experience, he comes off so "slight." He doesn't come off as a tough-guy Patton type. He's like a military metrosexual. I don't get it. But, I don't see him changing either. He's not a stiff. But, he still doesn't have *it.*
Edwards? No. Unless he matures in the looks category, gains a little weight and stiffens up that spine over the next few years, I think people still see him as a Jr. -- not a Sr. As was displayed during his debates with you know who who's right now sitting in some secure undisclosed location. People are waking up to how the Bush Administration -- the "Daddy" party -- is letting us down. But, I believe most people do understand we are living in dangerous times and want someone who comes off
stronger -- more solid than John Edwards. Edwards is *cute* -- We could've done cute in the '90s -- I don't believe so now.
Hillary? You're right, she's gunnin' for it big time, but again, she's not a *star,* she is also a stiff! Keep thinking about the celebrity factor. Not just the famous name, but real star quality. She doesn't have it at all. She's so monotone in her speaking style. She's frumpy. I'm not talking about her policy decisions or what kind of politician she is. She doesn't have *it* -- and by *it* -- I mean that thing certain people have that compels you to listen to them, watch them. She doesn't have it. Bill did and still does. She doesn't.
(Attacking her speaking style and calling her frumpy may be unfair. Life can be unfair sometimes. And I completely agree with Mac in your comments thread -- the Right is totally pushing her and the media would love to re-hash all that creepin' crud again.)
Lance writes, "I can't see Hillary doing a better job of keeping her Party in line than her husband did in 1993. And I can't see her meeting outstretched arms when she reaches across the aisle for the Republican votes."
You know. I do not know of and cannot imagine ANY Democratic President that will ever meet outstretched arms when reaching across the aisle. Not one. The brightest shining Democratic star and even the poorest, most boring pathetic Democratic loser would be continually attacked by these doberman's. It is not in the Right's nature to cooperate, compromise or assist a Democrat in any way. All they do is attack -- and they are really good at it. Let them attack, cuz they're gonna. And let us lead, because we can.
Lance continues, "The next President we get better be a great one. He, or she, had better be able to unite Americans in an heroic effort to put back together what George Bush has smashed."
You know, Lance -- a Politically United America would be a wonderful thing. But, I don't believe we Democrats have the luxury to focus on that. Yes, our nominee will have to talk about it and use that line in speeches, but our sole purpose, our number one priority has got to be to win. And that
means putting someone out front who can win.
Not only to start putting all our country's smashed pieces together again, but to help the world understand we are not flippin' lunatics!
Again, a large portion of the Right is not going cooperate anyway. They don't want a Politically United America. It's not their *thing.* They'll continue to rip this country to shreds -- and I don't even know what for anymore!
We need a Star.
Ok. Here's my pick. And I know that all of you are going to throw pixilated cherry bombs at me, because from what I've read most of you don't like him. Lance, you didn't even mention him.
My pick is Joe Biden. I see a Star in Joe Biden.
I see the smile. I see the looks. I see the stature. I see the experience. I see the charisma. I see a great BS'er. He can talk and schmooze. He can answer questions in a very intelligent way without coming off as pompous and stiff. He's a good debater who holds his ground.
Why don't you guys like him? Have you all done research and gathered evidence that proves he's totally unworthy? Please, please share.
Do you not like him because you've seen him act like an unprincipled politician? Was it really that bad?
He's done things (or not done things) that have pissed me off -- but who's going to be perfect? Has he really done things that sleezy that we couldn't rally behind him?
I know Biden's involved in Citi Corp. shenanigans. I know he plagiarized from some book or poem years ago. I know he's got hair plugs. And I know he cozy's up to money.
But I see a Star in Biden. I see a winner there. And damnit -- I want to win next time.
If Biden would win, would we all somehow lose? Is there something I'm unaware of?
Ok. There's my rant. And Lance and all who are reading this. If I missed some nuance -- if some things didn't make perfect sense -- please excuse. It's what happens when ranting -- which is why I try to avoid it.