Blogroll Me! How This Old Brit Sees It ...: 'Realpolitik' Ruling America : As Always?

13 July 2007

'Realpolitik' Ruling America : As Always?



We wonder.

Will anything be any different - this time?

Will any genuine outrage finally come out of the closet?

If so, from whom? And when? And in what form? And with what seriousness and/or strength? And how sustained do you personally suppose any such show of public protest should be?

Maybe much more to the point, if none at all, in God's name, why?

Wondering what we're talking about? Well, in case you haven't heard yet ... here's what.

Kucinich Camp Outraged by 'Overheard' Plans of Clinton and Edwards to Eliminate Candidates from Future Presidential Debates

How's that for a headline?

Read on. Albeit at your own risk. Since any (maybe even all), hope(s) you have ever harboured may disappear in an instant - in fact, in that fabled 'poof!'.

DETROIT, July 13 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Top campaign officials for Ohio Congressman and Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich tonight expressed outrage that rival candidates Hillary Clinton and John Edwards were overheard collaborating on a strategy to eliminate other Democratic candidates from future debates and forums.

According to the Associated Press, Fox News Channel microphones picked up Clinton and Edwards on stage discussing their desire to limit future joint appearances to exclude some rivals lower in the crowded field.

"We should try to have a more serious and a smaller group," Edwards said into Clinton's ear following a Presidential Forum in Detroit hosted by the NAACP on Thursday.

Clinton agreed with Edwards, according to print reports and video footage of the exchange. "We've got to cut the number. ...

Read the rest of this jaw-dropping report right here.

Back to business as usual?

Well, we don't know about you, but we sincerely believe that just about sums it up.

In America, 'Realpolitik' rules.

Moreover, it appears to us that it always has and, that it always will.

Unless, of course ...... ?

You tell us.

Labels: , , , ,

4 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the 'real' ruler is Apathy, since that's what allows all other 'pretenders' to do the things they do.

But then again, I don't exactly disagree with the thrust of you piece, Old Brit.

4:20 pm  
Anonymous anonymoustwo said...

If that's the way these w*nkers think and act, can you honestly imagine any Americans [or anyone else for that matter] being any better off if either of them becomes [a Democratic?] president?

I can't.

9:20 pm  
Blogger gordo said...

Anonymoustwo--

Really? You can't imagine that Edwards would be any better than Bush? Do you also think that Kinnock and Thatcher were just two sides of the same coin?

I'm afraid I have to disagree with Richard on this one. The fact is, there are only 3 candidates who have any chance at all of winning. And every time there's a press conference, the least serious candidate, Mike Gravel, grabs all the media attention with his grandstanding. As a result, voters lose yet another opportunity to determine whether Edwards, Clinton, or Obama would better represent them.

The main problem, of course, is the forum. Eight candidates, ninety minutes... there's simply not any time for a serious discussion. That's why we wind up with nothing more than a few zingers and an occasional gaffe.

If I had my way, the media would send written questions to the campaigns, and ask candidates to respond. Then they could dissect one another's answers, again in writing.

But stand-up debates are the worst possible way to examine candidates. Candidates can shade the truth, and even make things up. If they get caught by the media, they can "clarify", arguing that they were working from an imperfect memory. But most of all, they can simply run out the clock with non-answers and non-sequiturs, which is what most of them do.

So the answer is not to limit the number of candidates invited to debate, but to do away with the debates altogether.

5:00 am  
Anonymous anonymoustwo said...

Gordo, all that is fine - so long the Democratic Party's name is changed to better reflect it's reality.

As for Kinnock, I can't fathom any connections. He was never elected a prime minister. Maybe because he wouldn't shy away from calling things as honestly as he did.

1:14 pm  

Post a Comment

COMMENTS and Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home