...promulgates more of the ethereal mysticismhe goes on to say:
about Obama being the new JFK.
JFK, as significant a leader as he was, was a hard core Cold War hawk. He approved the invasion of other nations and approved of regime change as a tool of American foreign policy...Mysticism and gut will not assure our allies, deter our foes, restore confidence among our citizens, or make America regain its unique national and international character again.
all of this jfk talk, i think, has the possibility of turning some voters off. i, for one, would not clean my room when my mother told me to. in fact, if she told me to, i would purposefully put it off.
similarly, i don't like being told who to vote for, or that someone is "the new jfk", or that i should vote for them because stallone, chuck norris, or oprah wants me to. (in fact, oprah's endorsement, for me, is a big negative. shut the hell up oprah, i say.)
we keep yelling at the t.v. during debates and interviews, "talk about the issues!". but they keep on talking about race. and gender. and who got a haircut and who's wearing a pantsuit. and who won the highest percentage of the vote among left-handed, middle-class, latino, union members.
we've been looking for the new jfk longer than i've been looking for the next good elton john record. i've read many regional theater reviews that use the quote "better than broadway!" and my question would be: have these people seen broadway lately? "well, she's no patti lupone," i've heard and i think thank god!
so why does obama need to be jfk? or rfk? or mlk? why not let obama be obama. and let clinton be bartlet. oops...