Going "negative" brings negative results

By GERRY WARNER
Cranbrook Daily Townsman
May 2, 2008
So it has come down to this -- whether or not you're wearing an American flag pin in your lapel, how patriotic or unpatriotic your pastor is and whether you go bowling with the boys on Friday night. Welcome to politics in the United States of America, the most powerful empire on earth, and where the next Commander in Chief will be the presidential candidate that's best at ignoring policy in favour of personality and "going negative" in the campaign.
Say it ain't so, Martha. Or should that be Hillary?
One thing you say for the Clintons; they didn't get to where they are by overestimating the intelligence of the American public or by walking the high road when the low road is so inviting. Nor did they get there by playing the old cop game of good guy, bad guy. Both Clintons are bad. He the serial philanderer; she the hallucinating traveler who imagines sniper fire when there's nary a weapon in sight. Indeed they only look good when compared to the current occupant of the oval office, a former cocaine user, draft avoider and war monger who sleeps like a baby every night even though he's directly responsible for the deaths of thousands in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Hate to sound so bleak, but I defy anyone to point out a single untruth in the above. Like it or not, this is the world we're living in today.
Now I have to admit I was skeptical myself when Barack Obama first came on the presidential scene. Not being an American, I knew nothing about him, but common sense told me that one term in the Senate is a very thin platform on which to launch a presidential bid. Sure, John Kennedy did that. But that was John Kennedy. His like doesn't come along every day.
But as the campaign wore on - no pun intended - I became more and more impressed with Obama. After all, he had indeed voted against the war in Iraq while his supposedly more "experienced" and worldly-wise opponent joined the braying mob in favour. And I don't mind admitting that the tragic, futile and totally unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are my personal political litmus tests for supporting or not supporting presidential candidates, or any other political candidate for that matter. And yes I know that Hillary is now against the war in Iraq too and wants to bring the troops home. Pretty slow learner, don't you think?
But Hillary's flip-flop on Iraq speaks volumes about what drives her as a politician. And that's nothing more than naked ambition and expediency. When she senses public opinion has changed about the war, she changes too. That may be smart politics, but it's not vision. Nor is it honesty, integrity or character. The only character that Hillary's flip-flop on the war demonstrates is that she's a reed in the wind. She will go wherever the mob goes. She won't attempt to lead the mob - or the electorate if you will - down a different path. That would be leadership and Hillary is no leader.
Let me give you another example. When Fidel Castro announced he was stepping down a month or two back it raised the issue of whether the U.S. would change its belligerent foreign policy towards Cuba and end its almost 50 year boycott of the hard-pressed Caribbean nation. Not a chance, said the would-be Iron Lady, catering again to the lowest common denominator and all those God-fearing Americans that still check for communists under their beds every night. Obama, on the other hand, said it's time to re-think America's policy toward Cuba and the rest of its foreign policy too. That took vision, being willing to go in a direction that the U.S. hasn't gone in half-a- century. Don't look for that kind of vision from Hillary. (And if memory serves me correctly, even Bill Clinton said in the past he was willing to re-consider the Cuban boycott too.)
I suppose some solace can be taken from the fact that neither Hillary nor Obama are talking about American troops remaining in Iraq and Afghanistan for another 80 years like Republican war hero John McCain is. But that is pretty thin gruel. These wars, which are costing the U.S. treasury more than $2 billion-a-month, are one of the major reasons the world's only superpower is teetering on the edge of a recession right now and threatening to plunge the rest of the world into the same morass. Having said all this, my only hope is that the Democrats will have a candidate chosen by the end of this month because arguably the worst president in American history doesn't deserve to be followed by another militaristic Republican.
And if push comes to shove, I'd even be glad to take Hillary.
-- 30 --