The death of distance via the Internet has permitted me to keep close tabs on the American race for the White House. I am much reminded of the lyrics of the 1970 song "Share The Land" by The Guess Who: "Did you pay your dues? Did you read the news this morning when the paper landed in your yard? Do you know their names? Can you play their games without losing track and coming down a bit too hard?"
There are literally thousands of articles on the contenders. I'm quickly becoming an Obamaologist and McSameologist; bordering on psephology (the study of political elections). I'm still trying to sort things out with only four months left to do so. In spite of the latter's misnomer, I haven't jumped on a bandwagon yet, although by implication you may think so.
I have viewed and perused and reviewed media coverage to the tune of well over one hundred articles, verging on Obama-mania and McCain-mania. However, I stay clear of the candidates' Websites as they have been scrupulously and meticulously tailored to make them shine and catch anyone's eyesight. I don't want statistics as they are often misleading. I want them to tell me what they think without mumbo-jumbo.
Anyway, all I know is what I read in the papers and a recent article (K.T. Sat/Sun, June 21-22, 2008) titled "Obama Weighs Edwards, Nunn as Running Mates" alerted me. In a word or three in the second paragraph was the expression "Congressional Black Caucas." Now, my question for Obama is: "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Congressional Black Caucas?" This is rhetorical as we know he is a member. Thus, it would be honorable for him to stand down from membership (just as he distanced himself from his former church) because it is a "special interests" faction that is often contentious and self-seeking. It seems to me that he would wish for absolute color-blind policies.
The "list of politics topics" is unending. In that most of us are not political science or history majors or lawyers or economists, etc. we need straight forward plain talking and explanations without jargon. We depend upon commentators to aid our insight. But, most of all we want to know how our candidates really feel; what they really think.
Often what they are thinking is not what they are speaking. This is inadvertently brought to light by gaffes, Freudian slips, pauses, unintentional statements, and other inadvertent slips of the tongue, etc. The difference between what is said and what was meant to be said can be not only embarrassing but detrimental to one's reputation. Words make noise and often sit on pages a very long time for late readers to judge you by. McCain well knows this as he entered the world of politics in 1977 and Obama in 1997.
The aforementioned reason is why the two candidates choose to be groomed and they spend a lot of money on that grooming. Whatever else they may be, they are presented to us as a symbol. Their clothes are chosen for them and their words are chosen for them. They pay profesionals to tell us what they the candidates themselves want us to know. we can only know what they are really thinking when they are caught on-the-spot - not through their speeches (at least, not since Abe Lincoln). Extemporaneous responses through impromptu interviews and questions about "third rail" issues elicit a dead give away.
As a wide-awake public, it is the gaffes, catchphrases, and metaphors that really tell us what they stand for. As a wide-awake public, we now know when we hear things we will no longer be taken-in by slogans or political deceptive euphemisms (lying) such as "Read my lips! No more taxes."; revenue enhancements (taxes); "Let me make one thing perfectly clear."; pacification (bombing); "Mistakes have been made."; non-retention (firing). Too, we are now keen to the political metaphors "blank check" and "pork barrel."
Let us be vigilant to listen carefully to the candidates, especially, when they begin muck-raking and mudslinging. This is how we shall know their true colors. Let us see wherein they compromise. Let us see if catch-as-catch-can and by any means necessary is their creed.
It is most certain that the 1997-Obama and the 1977-McCain are not the 2008-Obama and 2008-McCain and they will clearly not be the same persons in 2009. They must remember that "No comment" is a strong comment. Let us pray, let us choose, let us vote, and then let us hope.
