« One of a Hundred – page 110 – Another Episode?! | Main | Let’s Get the Kids Hep to Christ! »
Election 2008: Making and Breaking Opinions About the Parties
By Marc | September 12, 2008
Julie and I decided when we first started this site we would not be publicly politically biased. Especially now, with elections coming up in a little less than two months, we don’t want to endorse one presidential candidate and vilify the other. If we are going to praise one, we have to praise all. If we bash one, we have to bash all. But that doesn’t count when applied to those no longer in the race or the independent supporters, as long as it doesn’t cast more shadows or light on the current contenders.
Hillary Clinton. I think no person has done more in recent years to champion the Democratic Party than Senator Clinton. I think she has been a real trooper when it comes to getting people riled up for a cause. If we were to have a first woman president, she would be the best person to fit the job. She’s tough, determined, intelligent, and full of personality. Whether or not you like her, you can’t deny those traits. To us, she was the least unbearable.
When Obama came out ahead of her and won the nomination, she handled it (at least publicly) with grace and optimism. She put her full support behind her rival for president. I was sure she would then be chosen as running mate. Then, no. She was denied it in favor of Joseph Biden. Personally, this would have crushed me. It’s like working your butt off for your company, then being passed over for a promotion and the job goes to some new hire. But again, she put on her game face and backed her party and Obama. She has shown disappointment (but not to the point of being pitiable), honest emotion, and humanity, but always pulls herself back up and keeps going when setbacks occur.
Whatever side you walk on politically, you can’t deny her drive and aspirations. She’ll be back in 2012.
Matt Daimon. Like Clinton for the Democrats, nobody in recent weeks has done more for the Republican Party than this half-idiot man boy. If you haven’t seen his oh-so-valuable ranting about Sarah Palin, maybe you should take a look. He comes across as sexist and uninformed, calling her a “soccer mom” and genuinely wants to know if she believes dinosaurs existed 4,000 years ago. He’s really scared she could become president (because evidently McCain is going to die within 2 months of taking office), but knows nothing about her, and doesn’t think he ever will know anything about her. How’s that for stealing valuable airtime, being given a chance to let your voice be heard, and then finding out you got half your political views from some insane guy on YouTube and the rest from the Hollywood Hive Mind™.
On the topic Hollywood, why is it celebrities believe that just because they’re famous, that gives them a reason to tell us what to think? The Daimon Show is just another example of movie stars watching a cause commercial or documentary, then going hog wild getting their recognition polished after a few months of rust. A few years ago, it was Susan Sarandon and her pet, Timmy, foaming at the mouth about one thing or the other; then it was Cheryl Crow and her worship of the great robot Gore.
Speaking of Tim Robbins, did anyone see the Tsunami Aid concert in the beginning of 2005? That was another example of celebrities getting a chance to show off their many ribbons of various colors while answering phones and singing. Anyway, at one point when I was watching, the camera switches to Mr. Tim, listening to the musical act as if in a daze. When he notices the camera is on him, he immediately panics and picks up a phone, pretending to talk. I wasn’t able to find the clip for this article, but I hope some of you remember it. It was pure comedy gold and a fine example of the cult of image.
The Oprah. She has Barack Obama on her show (twice-although both times were before he announced his candidacy), publicly endorses and campaigns for him, and then refuses to have any current candidate on the show because she doesn’t want the “Oprah” program to be a political platform.
In her defense, that means she won’t be having Obama on until after the election, so hopefully the show itself stays unbiased.
On the other hand, she borders on cult leader, with acolytes all over willing to throw themselves off of temples at her whim, like James Earl Jones in Conan the Barbarian. She also follows a crazy man, but that’s beside the point.
I don’t watch “Oprah” so I can’t really say what will happen. Since it’s her show and she’s the host, it would be hard for her not to let her personal ideologies be known at some time in the tapings.
There are enough things to joke and praise about the current nominees, both red and blue, but aside from what I said about Sen. Clinton, it’s funny to just watch their supporters fumble all over themselves. Unfortunately, there aren’t a lot of people with half-baked political opinions in Hollywood who support Republicans. I would love to make fun of them also, if only to play equal. But right now, I’m not sure anyone could come close to Matt Daimon on that front.
Topics: In the News | 4 Comments »
September 12th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
I don’t get Daimon when he says there is a 1 in 3 chance Palin will be president. Where did he pull out those stats? We have had 2 vice presidents step in since Kennedy. And there have been really old guys in the job! Heck, Cheney alone has had how many heart problems during the Bush administration, and he shot a guy! But he’s still going. So why is it a 1 in 3 chance Palin will be president? Mostly, him saying Palin is just a hockey mom is terrible! A lot of kids are in sports, but that is not what defines the parents position in life that would qualify them for various jobs. If that’s all this actor thinks of women he should keep it quiet.
September 12th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
We all tend to spend most of our time with people who have similar beliefs. Unless you enjoy constant bickering or enjoy guarding every word it simplifies conversation and allows us to relax. When someone reaches a level of wealth and/or influence they tend to be surrounded by people who not only agree with them but stroke their ego. This appears to be common among actors and leads to individuals believing they are more intelligent and or knowledgeable than they may be. Among us mortals this separation is leading to a progressively more divided nation. How often do you hear “I can’t understand how ANYONE could be a (Republican/Democrat/Libertarian/Socialist/****) or “How could he/she be elected? I don’t know any one who voted for him/her.” Can we still open our minds and realize there are good, caring and intelligent people across the political spectrum. Get to know them, ask them questions listen and learn.
Thank you for this opportunity to scratch one of the burrs under my saddle.
September 15th, 2008 at 11:15 am
That’s a good point, Bob. There are politicians who really care and became politicians to make a difference. They are in BOTH the democrat and republican parties. Often someone has a solution that may really help, but we don’t listen because they are on the wrong “side”.
September 15th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
The founding fathers were opposed to political parties the way they are now organized. The concept was to have groups form around a cause/bill and re form around another cause/bill. Even though my home state (Nebraska) has a reputation for voting Republican we have produced and supported Ben Nelson, Chuck Hagel Ed Zorinsky and many other crossover politicians.
If I vote for McCain, the fact that he does not toe a party line will be part of the process. No currently living individual, or party is always right.