what's in a name?kennedy. adams. bush. clinton. i recently read an article in us news and world report about dynasticism in us politics. this question, quoted in the article, posed to hillary clinton during a CA debate really got me thinking. "I am 38 years old, and I have never had an opportunity to vote in a presidential election in which a Bush or a Clinton wasn't on the ballot." this person really opened a can of questions for me. why has this been the case for the past 20 years? is it the cost of campaigning? does the media play a role in not reporting other good, underdog type candidates? have the democratic and GOP parties taken the easy way out in selecting their candidates the past 20 years? furthermore, have americans taken the easy way out in electing a president? i think the new names that are being thrown around in 2008 (mccain, obama) are creating good energy in this presidential election year. there's uncertainty and excitement from my vantage point. 
|
 |
About SplendoraSplendora is the authority on fabulous. We dish up heaping amounts of style with a tangy side of celeb gossip, shopping genius, and "Where to" guides in the nation's favorite cities. |
Star Diaries |
Claim Your CrownMarry into royalty when you join Splendora. It's free and it only takes a second to join your new Best Friends Forever. You get...
 |
Recent Blog Posts |
Classifieds |
01:32 PM
It's the consequences....
of a bipartician system and the feeling you have to vote for "your" party. It's also the over complications of the political system ( unpleged delegates, pleged delegates, electoral college)....which in turn tend to have people turn to the name they know. It's also some serious who you know, "experience via relation", more lobbist= more votes. I think Mos Def said it best: "They're passing the Presidency around like a party joint - it goes from the Bushes to Clinton, back to Bushes . . . "