The sad thing about America seems to be that we cannot put forth a slate of decent human beings to compete for the highest executive office in our government.
We would rather choose someone who looks nicer, has gender bias, is supposedly uniting because he is half negro and half caucasian, or some mix of races that nobody really understands. We choose a man because he was stupid enough to get shot down in a different “wrong-war” (and NO! I am not saying that everyone who was shot down in Vietnam was stupid!) and then made the noble and stupid gesture of refusing repatriation. These are not valid reasons to nominate a person to the position of garbageman, no less the Presidency.
Doug began this column this year with the promise of a more gentle and understanding column, and less mudslinging and nastiness. This story about Senator Clinton is disturbing to say the least, and not at all in the spirit which was promised earlier. If Doug’s allegations are true, then we should consider dropping her as a candidate. But to bring up President Clinton’s past behavior does unwarranted disservice to Candidate Senator Clinton. It has no relevance to the campaign, to Senator Clinton’s credibility, or to her qualifications to be President of The United States of America. If anything she should be admired for standing by her man–but that too is a private matter and not for public venues or discussions.
We need to examine the candidates carefully, to learn their strengths and their weaknesses. We need to debate, discuss, defend, attack, deride, praise, extoll and learn about these men and women. Discussing the failings of their spouses is irrelevant. Saying that the candidate is so naive as to believe the rantings of his minister does great disservice to the candidate and gives credibility to the stupidity that the minister is preaching. It is a waste of our time and worth little.
But more important than these three people who run for the Presidency is the issue of how and why we choose a candidate. The person makes an announcement and then is a candidate. That is simplification, but leads one to believe that only those who announce their candidacy are qualified. To that I say: “Ask any ten men or women you find on the street in any city if they would like to be the next President of the United States. If they don’t call the men in white coats to take you in for observation, then they may accept your offer. I would guess that 6 of the 10 would say “Yes!”
My point is that we need to democratize the electoral process. We need to go back and elect a farmer like Washington, not an elitist farmer like Carter. We need to find people who will represent US, and govern with honesty and a total dedication to making our country as great as itwas before–in the days of Roosevelt and Truman. These people are out there–just ask the next 10 people you meet in the street.
Or look in the mirror.