Dear Editor,
Despite the Newsweek statistics provided by New York-based Caribbean pollster and sometimes letter writer, Mr. Vishnu Bisram, I seriously doubt New York Senator Hillary Clinton will ever sweep into the White House in 2008.
The emphasis is on ‘doubt’, because Mrs. Clinton’s believability factor is bound to come back to haunt her, and Americans have no stomach for this right now. After leaving the White House as First Lady to take up residence in New York and run as a Senator, she vehemently dismissed speculation that her Senate bid in 2000 was a first step towards a White House run.
Then in her Senate re-election bid a couple of years ago, she again stoutly denied she had designs on the White House and repeated that she wanted only to serve the people of New York. How noble!
But when a rising political star of African American extraction named Barack Obama, with only a couple of years experience in the US Senate, began making waves and was even being touted as a possible Democratic Party presidential candidate, it apparently sent shivers up and down Mrs. Clinton’s spine.
Within one week of Mr. Obama’s announcement that he was forming an exploratory committee to launch his presidential bid, Mrs. Clinton followed suit.
Even as she shamelessly said bye-bye to her 2000 and 2004 denials of ever wanting to seek the White House, how can voters not see her believability factor coming back to haunt her? And will her believability in roles in the Arkansas White Water scandal and the White House Travel Office fiasco not be revived?
While Mrs. Clinton has reportedly done well as a Senator, and carries a name well known in political circles, I don’t know that Mr. Obama is enough of a political heavyweight to get the party’s nod as the candidate, However, when compared with Mrs. Clinton – whom many critics deem as a phoney, conniving and manipulative political diva – he seems to have the kind of authenticity Americans are looking for in their political leaders, and especially the one who will sit in the White House.
Still, for pure political spectacle, it should be exciting drama to see a Clinton-Obama ticket!
On these instant polls, meanwhile, it is clear that certain people and media houses are conducting them to achieve a specific objective.
In much the same way questions in polls are coined to cause people to say negative things of President George W. Bush so that he winds up with the lowest popularity rating or as the worst American president ever, they are also being manipulated to rally support for individuals that media houses prefer or like.
If there is anyone out there who doubts the ability of the American media to influence and shape domestic and foreign policy by prodding Americans to think a certain way, I urge you to wake up.
I strongly believe in a proactive and fiercely independent media, but I take the time to distinguish between media outlets that serve a partisan purpose and those that give the bare facts to the people and let the people decide.
It would amaze many if they would recall the time just before America led the current invasion of Iraq, and see how the same media outlets were in the forefront rallying the people behind the US President. If Bush lied, it was convenient to a compliant media that chose not to investigate anything.
These media outlets also reported that allies in Europe had just about the same information as the US Govern-ment’s on Iraq’s WMDs, but the allies’ reluctance to support an Iraq invasion was supposedly based on the fact some allies had direct investments in Iraq, or simply wanted to whittle away America’s influence in the Middle East to the benefit of the EU. The French especially came in for a severe tongue lashing by the American media.
But now that the insurgents and terrorists are receiving foreign support in Iraq and the Bush Administration is caught in a bind trying to figure out an exit strategy that would not leave Sunnis and Shiites slaughtering each other as Iran and Saudi Arabia vie for supremacy in the region, the American media have turned on the Bush Administration.
Take ‘Mission Accomplished’ for example. That was based on the successful routing of Saddam Hussein’s army; it had nothing to do with the insurgents and terrorists that subsequently emerged. But the same media are now deliberately refusing to recognize the context in which the claim was made.
Not that we expect it, but how ironic that the same media have not put forward any sort of exit strategy? What Americans need to remember is that the American media were never elected to represent the people, so they cannot be held accountable/responsible for the outcomes of decisions they helped to influence and shape in people’s minds.
Then there are the Democrats. Despite being given a chance by voters last year to help bring some semblance of sense and sanity to the Iraqi conflict, all they talk about is withdrawal or cutting off funding, both of which have dire consequences if done without careful planning.
Look, before George W. Bush became President, and especially during the Bill Clinton presidency, it was obvious that America was about to face its toughest test as a superpower and leader of the free world.
First, let’s take the 1990s attacks on American soil and against its interests by radical elements to run America out of the Middle East, thereby hurting its economy and political stature. Second, we have the resurgence of socialist regimes and a hostile leader of a major oil seller in South America seeking to undermine America and the picture becomes clearer.
These factors leave America in a precarious position that requires firm leadership if its role as leader of the free world is to be preserved.
It would be interesting to read what other instant polls say about Senator John McCain and former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani as likely candidates for the White House.
Because these tough times demand tough leadership, I strongly doubt Mrs. Clinton is tough enough for the job. In fact, I think a President Hillary Rodham (Clinton) is more than likely to have a foreign policy that would facilitate the forces of change seeking to undermine America’s role as a superpower and free world leader, and a domestic policy that would give left leaning regimes reason to believe socialism and communism can be revived.
Yours faithfully,
Emile Mervin
