From: harrity@sumax.seattleu.edu (Daniel Harrity)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Today, and then the future
Date: 21 Jul 92 13:50:54 GMT
Organization: Seattle University, Seattle, WA

In article <21JUL92.00294569@skyfox.usask.ca> misra@skyfox.usask.ca writes:
>In a previous article, buckland@ucs.ubc.ca (Tony Buckland) wrote:
>>  
>> On July 16, 1992, Governor Clinton said:
>> 
>>   Reach out and join us in a great new adventure.
>> 
>>   Tomorrow can be better than today, and ... every one of us has
>>   a moral responsibility to make it so.
>> 
>>   Our eyes have not seen, nor our ears heard, nor our minds
>>   imagined, what we can build.
>> 
>>   Where there is no vision, the people perish.
>> 
>>   There is no them; only us.
>> 
>>   Seize this moment.
>> 
>>   New hope and limitless possibilities; that's what this New
>>   Covenant is about.
>> 
>>   I still believe in a place called Hope.
>> 
>> This person has the Vision Thing, and by God, America needs it.

>I wouldn't want to be accused of being cynical, but if the truth be known,
>the above quoted "sermon on the mount" most likely came from Governor Clinton's
>speech writers. I seem to remember something about a "kinder gentler America" 
>and "a thousand points of light" from the last presidential election. It's all
>very well saying nice things. The real trick is to figure out HOW to make it 
>work.
>
>Pearse

I'm inclined to agree with Pearse. I can't say I particularly *don't* like
Candidate Clinton. But you must agree that, really, it's not that terribly
difficult to be a "feel-good" candidate, and such is what I think Mr.
Clinton is trying to do. (I mean, geeze, how *could* you be against those
one-liners above?)

Coming from a politician, one of the most prevalent assumptions, I'd
guess, is that the above-mentioned quotes are nothing more than
sugar-coated platitudes designed to make this guy appeal to the greatest
amount of people (voters) possible. At least, that's what came to mind for
me, and I'd like to think I'm not *that* cynical.... 

And yes, he probably has no choice but to pull this kind of stunt, since
they all do it. It's the unfortunate condition of the political process
that's faulty here, which has rather degenerated into a marketing game :(

I saw a report on the news yesterday showing just how pre-planned all
those "spontaneous" little talks by politicians are.  In this case, a
simple talk to some country-folk at an Ohio farm was pre-orchestrated to a
truly surprising extent, so as to maximize the candidate's appeal to
everyone possible.

I really, really wonder whether a genuinely honest, well-meaning and
hard-working candidate for political office would stand a chance in our
system, as now it stands.  In other words, if someone simply got up and
just *spoke* (with no pre-orchestration, marketeers :) and didn't spend
gobs of money on digging up the dirt on his opponents, would (s)he survive
even the first round? 

Daniel John Kelly-Harrity ---------| |--------- "Sooner spit in a 
Seattle University ----------------| |---------  Wolf's Eye,
Seattle, Washington ---------------| |---------  than cross an
USA 98122 -------------------------| |---------  Aes Sedai."

          "If it's not Scottish, It's *crap*!"