I never like to publicly commend on the happenings in the US. Firstly because I have met some many wonderful American friends and how I think if I were them, I wouldn't like to see a ignorant Singaporean comment on my country and secondly, I have never thought that I knew enough not to embarrassed myself...
But this time, its a little different. I have been following too long to look at an article and not have an own opinion of my own...
So...
I read with interest about a news editor article on the US election: a cry for McCain... It set me thinking... is the saying: the pen is more powerful than the sword really true in this case? can it be that -gasp- we made a mistake after all? can it be that we have been swayed and blinded by the general media... that after months and months of primary caucus and general election campaign that we continue to be taken in by the liberal media?
I did ask myself more than once, if my views on him was colored (no pun intended) by the glorifying efforts of the media.. there were hundreds of media (including all the heavyweights that I looked for when I want to be in touch with US news) that were backing obama and only less than a hundred that were endorsing mcCain... was it that we were to quick to judge, to put him on a pedestal, to pray for hope and change that he promised but may never materialize?
and I would be kidding if I said I never doubted or waver... (if you were asking about manu or hp, my answer would have been much firmer)... there were too much at stake. to not have questioned.
and that is my point. If it wasn't this time of the business cycle. If it wasn't the long primary caucus that trained him to become more aware of the duties, shortcomings and challenges. If it wasn't for the long and tiring drive to the top, if it wasn't such a long time I was hooked on to political news on reuters.. I would have been persuaded by the article.. but it wasn't.
I wasn't so naive to believe that everything promised and spoken will be adhere to. I wasn't going to make myself believe that as much a man he is, he will not switch sides on important issues, tap dance on vital issues. There isn't time for him to be trained for the job. But unfortunately, this wasn't a time for someone like mcCain either...
The change the article felt was missing, to me referred to health care reforms, energy changes. The change was about not sticking to old Washington ways of handling situations, was about not following on 8 years of tax policies, system of laissez faire that was doomed to head to disaster... the change was the departure from what has been done in the past 8 years... while there might be the mistaken extrapolation to mean evolutionary difference from the entire history.. we all know that is not possible.
The criticism of ambiguous change has been brought up many times...(if that came as a shock to the editor who seem to think the media thinks the world of Mr president-elect) As much as the media do favor him, there remains many reservations and considerations from the start... it might be also nice to note that he wasn't even the ideal nominated candidate of his party when the primaries started about 1+ year ago somewhere in that article.
McCain did himself a disfavor when he choose an unknown that clearly wasn't effective in dealing with the media (and that is a positive statement, not a normative one) she had the greatest opportunity to showcase herself when she started with a clean sheet but she obviously missed her shot. So while it is an undeniable fact that media bias was real (and do you not think it has not been exploited by the McCain camp? when especially they did all they could to squeeze every possible sexist accusations that ever existed)... the mcCain camp did make the job so much easier to do.
obama's entire focused campaign was simple: change (yes, you can), hope and anti-Bush. McCain was a bit more messy. they couldn't decide if they wanted to show he was experience and 'that one' wasn't (which flew right out of the window when the vp was elected), or that he had questionable definition of country loyalty and patriotism (who can forget that unforgettable 'palling around with terrorists'), or if they were the change (you betcha!) or the experienced...
it is not to say that by leveraging on what your precedent has failed rather on what you can achieved like the winning camp did(I have to admit, even I found it irritating to hear anti-bush chants for the 100001th time) is the best strategy but if you look from his point of view, whatever that gets you to the seat is the most effective one..
and while it is definitely not nice for the voters... there are so many websites that clarifies the difference in policies stands, so many webpages that are myth-hunters or hearsay-busters.. that it wasn't possible to have no stand of your own.. and hilary clinton has clawed her way through, busting his every stand and positions... so he, to me, came out of it to be a stronger candidate (which he did badly need) after that painful internal party fight.. he risked the danger of drifting rather than unifying the party but eventually he won them over.
McCain, as I did mention, is an admirable person to me. His unfaltering faith and loyalty is so strong, people feel proud to be his countryman (though his words can get a bit cheesy and arranged at times). The pain he endured, the pain he was willing to bear for that sense of pride is breath-taking.. and yet, he disappoints over and over again with his actions (I perceived his pick of vp as the worst).. he said he was the maverick, and yet he bowed to his party over and over again. He 'endorsed' Bush after a very public display of disaffection(which his aide said that was what he said in the public, guess what he say behind)
he chose to take the dirty politician route (not that obama didn't do any of that but it was refreshingly bare) and smearing game that everyone was just sick of...
and while the concession speak may be beautifully graceful (he was graceful when he endorsed bush as well), that side of him was buried in his blinded attempt to win at all cost.. he forgot about that side of him when he allowed himself to be all rattled up in debates and speeches...
so we do know. if we hadn't had such a long route to the White House, maybe we wouldn't had. But we do know.
No comments:
Post a Comment