-- Modified on 9/24/2008 4:31:26 PM
Ever since the election of the latest Bush, I have been wondering why America seems to hate exceptional people so much. One of the big things people talked about with Bush is that he's the kind of guy you'd like to have a drink with. So what? Why does that qualify him to run a country? He was a C student with a drug and alcohol history. What was the appeal?
Now, we are doing it again with Sarah Palin. The appeal seems to be that she's "like us." Why the fuck would I want someone like me to be President? I want someone better than me, a lot better. Oh yeah, btw, that bitch isn't even close to my level, let alone better than me. But really, that's not the point, I just wonder why people are not search for extraordinary leaders, but instead they look for leaders who mimic themselves.
You are right Palin is not close to your level .What have you accomplished ? Let us know when you get to be Governor of a state or have a chance at being VP 
I actually am far more accomplished than she and few would doubt it. Hiding behind the anonymity that the internet provides, I can be free to speak here without repercussion. Nonetheless, this issue has nothing to do with my resume. The question is why does the public want leaders who are like them. Even at my level, I definitely want to follow someone who is much much better.
-- Modified on 9/24/2008 10:00:39 AM
Yea the internet is funny in that regard and unless you give proof we can all laugh
I would say Bill Clinton probably fit that description, but looking back over the last several election cycles we have not been offered too many "exceptional" candidates.
Certainly not this election, none of the candidates put forth by either party comes anywhere near exceptional. A couple might be described as "elite" but certainly not exceptional.
I think it comes down to the fact that most exceptional prospects are too smart to run for the job. I think Colin Powell is a perfect case in point, he is way to fucking smart to put himself and his family through what it would take to get elected.
It really is a shame to think that in a country of 300 million plus people, this is the best we could come up with.
Most of the exceptional wealthy are already wealthy so feel no need to put themselves through such a process. The exceptional of more modest means typically find it far easier and more fulfilling to chase the dollar. Politicians are rarely the exceptional.
However, that did not really address my point. I wasn't criticizing one camp or the other for not being exceptional. I was wondering why it has become a rallying cry to have someone who is "ordinary," "common," "one of us," or "regular folk." How is it that lack of distinction has become a line item on a politician's resume? By this, I am truly dismayed.
but you ask for the exceptional candidate.
Clinton was. Exceptional in every way you wish to measure.... and yet - he would not qualify the way I would define exceptional...
But, I too think that asking for the exceptional - someone who actually IS better than me - should be what we demand... what we accept is much - much less.... look at the last Pres election - both were C- students. struggling to graduate.
What I think we actually want is someone who we believe will relate to our own personal lives... and while Clinton was an exceptional scholar of the American political process - he could also provide a feeling of empathy to most people... (actually during the conventions - the only public address I listened to was that delivered by Bill Clinton - why? because he IS able to connect with most folk - something which none of the current crop of aspirants seem to be able to do... Palin comes closest).
This requirement of the ability to provide empathy... well - when it superceded the requirement to actually be a good leader, who understands the facets of our society, economic system and our political system... well---- that too leaves me dismayed. In short - we agree.
as a matter of fact I sort of expected surprise on your part that the only exceptional POTUS I mentioned was a Democrat.
That aside, I believe the reason that many people look for the "common man" is a usually misplaced hope that the "common man" will somehow relate better to his needs and wants.
Kind of like Conroy wants a black man as POTUS and like Conroy most people who use this basis end up extremely dissappointed with their candidates true nature.
... tell me which election cycles in the past were we "offered" exceptional (and what does that mean???) candidates and who were they? I would argue that McCain and Obama are both quite exceptional, on many levels, as compared with any elections past. A war hero vs. a self-made African-American seems very exceptional to me.
She's nothing more than an great looking "Alaskan Hillbilly"!! As a MILF, I'd fuck her. But I don't know if I would vote for her since she seems dumber than a box of rocks.
I do like the old geezer, although I am concerned he may not live out his term, if elected.
Yea classy broad that Mallick and her saying she has ole Scottish upbringing makes my Scots heritage yearn for a good single malt to wash away the crap
around here think she might give good head. Head with eyeglasses. Hmmmmmmmm
Since she's a Canadian of Scottish heritage, let's get Mike Meyers to kick her ass lol.
I'm a little confused. Let me see if I have this straight.....
If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you're "exotic, different".
Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, You're the quintessential American story.
If your name is Barack you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.
Name your kids Willow, Trig and Track, you're a maverick.
Graduate from Harvard law School and you are an unacceptable gamble.
Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you're well grounded.
If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.
If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you're qualified to become the country's second highest ranking executive and next in line behind a man in his eighth decade.
If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real Christian.
If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and then left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a true Christian.
If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.
If, while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state's school system while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant, you're an icon of Christian American family values.
If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent America's.
If you're husband is nicknamed "First Dude", with at least one DWI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is above reproach and staunchly "Country First".
OK, much clearer now.
The next time you can't think of an original thought you might just consider not posting. Your little cut and paste has already been on many boards before, this one included.
It might have been amusing once, but it's like last week's fish dinner now. old and starting to smell.
you have added much to my threads. I invite everyone to read each and ever contribution made by kerrakles. It is a shame that you have chosen to use an alias so that we are unable to give you full credit for your ... value ... to the board.
-- Modified on 9/24/2008 4:31:26 PM
It is no more an alias than MisterRedBaron or GaGambler.
1600s, John Cotton, a prominent Puritan, said that the smarter one was, the more likely he would go to Hell.
IMO, the most important reason for this anti-intellectualism is that we value profit/wealth above anything else and therefore value the opinions of people with money above those of people with less money. We reflexively assume that people who are good at making money are also wise about all other things. Why else would we give a shit about what Charlton Heston or Donald Trump or Matt Damon think about anything?
The punk Matt Damon ain't on par with those other men .
Charlton Heston was a honorable man and Trump is well Trump ,you cannot help but like his cockiness
But I agree, Matt Damon's opinion means about as much to me as Conroy's. lol
Or pry the gun from my cold dead hands. Damn dirty apes.