You hear it all the time from our prospective political leaders. We must change the divisive tone of politics in Washington, ostensibly to usher in this new era characterized by many magical bonds between the legislative and executive branches. Remember when George W. Bush claimed to be a uniter, not a divider, an outsider not an insider, a tone-changer, not the tone-deaf manger he turned out to be? This year, of course, Obama, Clinton, and McCain want to change the tone too and for some reason, we continue to think that Washington’s tone is something you polish off like leather scuff.
Hugo Chavez announces the creation of |
In his quest to stay on the high ground of that supposedly easily changeable world of tone, already, Senator Obama’s failing. The day after his losses in Ohio and Texas, he resurrected the issue of Hillary Clinton’s financial records, saying very nicely, “What is she hiding?” Then Samantha Power, Obama’s former foreign policy adviser, called Hillary “a monster,” a comment which promptly lead to her resignation. It’s a lot easier to play nice after a win, isn’t it? Can we get David Archuleta to sing
Paul M Davis
3 Comments
Paul M Davis
Let’s not forget the British Parliament, which may be the most entertaining thing to watch on CSPAN. It’s all high-minded bloviating and put-downs like only the Brits can muster–”THE MAN FROM SURREY TAKES EXCEPTION TO THAT STATEMENT!” Plus, there’s as much audience participation as the WWE.
12 Mar 2008 08:03 am
ncm
Also, many of the Eastern European and Central Asian parliaments where, sometimes, “winning the argument” means your opponent is unconscious. But, isn’t that what real democracy looks like? It’s easier to believe that they care.
18 Mar 2008 03:03 pm
Paul M Davis
Yeah, it either takes political theater to another level, or demonstrates that they care enough to not be wholly cynical about their positions. I’d like to believe the latter.
18 Mar 2008 04:03 pm
Leave a Comment