The Presidential Race:What I did not hear

I talked a lot of politics this week.  Uncharacteristic for me, I listened more than I spoke. I was impressed with the quality of what I heard from people who come from all sorts of neighborhoods on the political spectrum.

My favorite quote of the week goes to a Republican with whom I usually disagree.  However, I completely agree with this statement:

"If Robert Gates had been Bush's first Defense Secretary, the country and the Republicans wouldn't have to swim upstream on Shit's Creek right now."

But mostly this week I was impressed with what I did not hear:

• I did not hear that Hilary Clinton should or should not be elected because she's a woman.
• I did not hear that Barak Obama should or should not be eleced president because he is black, or at least half-black.
• I did not hear that Rudolph Giuliani should or should not be elected because he is on his third wife.
• I did not hear whether or not Bill Richardson should or should not be elected president because he is Hispanic. Unfortunately for him, I did not hear him mentioned this week.

Personally, this seem to me to be a good thing.  People seem to be addressing issues rather than genes and hues. besides, we've had a long string of white men running America, and during my time here, we can only give them mixed reviews.

This last week, I did hear a lot of passion  and optimism about having a new president, any new president. I heard much talk about health care, and almost nothing about immigration. Everyone is for it, but no one seems to know what "it" is, but the topic seems to be helping Clinton.

I heard about the war. It is becoming a general perception that whoever gets elected will get us out, and most people don't want to think about what happens after that.

But there was a word I heard several times related to the presidency and politics.  It was a surprising word to hear in that context: "decency." People want to see more of it, and I think that's a good thing.

Comments

[Kris Patel]

Shel,

I agree with you that people during this campaign season are focusing more on what issues these candidates are standing for or NOT standing for. I'd say the main driving point, although issues are core, the main driving force is the citizens desire for a change. We have had a Bush-Clinton-Bush reign for a solid 17 years. Change is inevitable. Progress is sought after. Issues will be debated.

Cheers! -to engaging in "uncharacteristic" conversation. I would like to do that more often!

[Davida Dalka]

If it would only last.

[Rick Mahn]

Shel,
I agree that to date, the topics and attitude have remained on the positive side. I also hope that as we get further into the political season over the next year that all interests remain focused on the difficult issues facing our country.

The problem with comparing today to tomorrow, is that the current group of people involved in the process is the core "power user" politicals that really only talk the issues. As soon as the general public gets interested, which is always too late to help some of the really good candidates, the debate topics have already been identified by the polarized extremists. And all they can do is recycle what they've already heard instead of formulating their own opinion.

However, it does look like there are a new crop of candidates from all parties that may bring a new chance for honest debate. That is my one main request going into the Presidential election cycle.

"Ditto" to Kris - this "off topic" conversation is great from time to time.

[Bob LeDrew]

Shel, I too hope that your election stays a bit more on the high road. Sometimes we Canadians are a bit ... appalled by the level of ad hominem in US politics.

And if the "Blog line of the week" award existed, I'd nominate: "I did not hear whether or not Bill Richardson should or should not be elected president because he is Hispanic. Unfortunately for him, I did not hear him mentioned this week" for this week's.

Made me laugh out loud.