Obama, Clinton or McCain?

As a woman, Jocasta feels compelled to support Hillary; as a woman and a civil rights campaigner she is attracted by Obama the man and Obama the visionary; and, as a younger person who respects age and experience, she also feels that John McCain has the right stuff to be president. It’s a dilemma that a lot of people are feeling right now and she has tried to come to a conclusion via various methods, the latest being on their ages.

“According to their ages, and an analysis of their performance – what motivates them, what’s dragging them down and what magic ingredient they hold up their sleeve,” explains Jocasta, “Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain become very different people by late 2008 and more different than ever the year after.”

“Barack loses his political baggage by early August and becomes spiritual; Hillary loses her fiery aggression by late October and becomes uber possessive; and John loses his spirituality in late August and becomes uber aggressive.”

“A man with a calling, a venal woman and an ego maniac – the choice is yours!” laughs Jocasta. “It’s nothing personal, it’s just their age, a phase we all go through when our time comes.”

“In the same periods next year, 2009, Hillary Clinton is communicative, Barack Obama is aggressive and John McCain is conciliatory,” adds Jocasta, “so, if we are looking at the Iraq War, for instance, McCain and Clinton will be in passive mode and Obama will be in active mode, able to do something to end it.”

“On that basis alone, I’ve decided to back Obama.”

Read the surprising full analyses at:

Secrets of Barack Obama’s Age

Secrets of Hillary Clinton’s Age

Secrets of John McCain’s Age

dynastic democracy, the Bhutto lesson

The notion of a dynastic democracy does not sit well with Delphia. If the baton of government passes from one member of a family to another in a so-called democratic election, then what we have is a de facto monarchy or a dynastic dictatorship and we may as well give up all hope that a contract exists between us and the government, accept our slave status and prepare for perennial warfare.

"As disgusting as it was," says Delphia, "the assassination of Benazir Bhutto -- and the unfortunate death of many more Pakistanis -- was a backlash by those who do not want her family back in power in Pakistan ever again. I think we'd feel the same if George W Bush or another Bush family member resurrected themselves down the line."

"She had already seen two terms in office, following in her father's political footsteps, and both times was ousted on corruption charges -- and had caused 134 people (or more) to die in the first assassination attempt on her a short while ago," says Delphia, "so by what right did she feel she deserved a third term? Divine right? Dynastic destiny?"

"How many innocent bystanders was she prepared to accept being killed around before she realized that her grab for power was totally and implacably opposed?" says Delphia. "It had nothing to do with restoring democracy to Pakistan (Pervez Musharraf had declared martial law for a good reason, there's a war on, stupid!) -- it was purely and simply a naked grab for power supported by the insane Bush regime."

"In a country with a nuclear arsenal in the very middle of the terrorist war, Musharraf should have snooted his nose at the insane Bush regime and gently deported Ms Bhutto after the first attempt on her life -- or refused on security reasons to let her return to Pakistan in the first place," claims Delphia. "A good leader protects the lives of his/her citizens and doesn't allow situations to develop causing more loss of life. That's the contract, isn't it?"

"Sure, Ms Bhutto was very popular with a certain element in Pakistan -- the sort of element that makes gods of movie stars and Big Brother contestants -- but is being a pretty lady from a political family unashamedly pandering to the adulation of lesser mortals the right stuff for a leader, especially when that country is at war, festering with Islamic militants and has Osama hiding in the hills?"

"That she would have won the popular election is probably a given," says Delphia, "but surely this was not the right time to hold an election and surely there were far more deserving candidates. In a land such as Pakistan, bursting with educated, articulate and democratically fervent people, why didn't a real leader emerge from the masses to take charge and tell her to stay out of Pakistani politics?"

"What is more telling about Ms Bhutto's motives is an email she asked to be released, should something happen to her, blaming Musharraf for her demise," sighs Delphia. "Even from the grave she intended to foment more trouble for Pakistan and I cannot believe that her husband and sons are considering stepping into her poltical shoes. Don't they get it?"

"There are those who claim that true democracy died in Pakistan the day Benazir was killed," says Delphia, "but did it die in other democratic nations when a president or candidate was assassinated?"

"Of course not, life goes on," says Delphia, "and perhaps from Benazir's unfortunate death a real leader will have the opportunity to win the hearts of the people and put the Bhutto dynasty firmly back into history where it belongs."

"Dynasties are fine in family businesses and property deals," says Delphia, "but there is no place for them in democratic governments. There is no guarantee that a son, daughter or relative has inherited the 'right stuff' of a former glorious leader, and in fact more dynasties die out in corruption and ignomy than thrive."

"I know from my own family that the fortune my grandfather amassed was squandered by the next generation -- leaving my generation in poverty," says Delphia. "Why should a whole nation go south when spoilt brats full of entitlement crap about divine right and dynastic destiny get given a baton someone else in their family earned?"

"Our founding fathers were smart to limit office to two terms, but not smart enough to limit it exclusively to new blood," adds Delphia. "At the beginning of our great nation all citizens were given the right to seek office -- anyone with ability and the 'right stuff' can be president -- but how much is that true today?"

"The only thing George W Bush inherited from his father is a name and a lot of money -- he has none of his father's stuff," says Delphia. "And, sadly, Hillary Clinton is banking on her husband's name and wealth to get her into power, too."

"I say 'sadly' because she might have made it on her own, without any connection to the Bush and Clinton families, and for this she would have gained my vote."

"If my fellow citizens don't want to be slaves, oppressing other slaves in other lands, killing and being killed in endless senseless wars, then vote for new blood -- whatever party, it doesn't matter -- just as long as the candidate is not related or connected to the old political dynastic families in any shape or form."

smoking president, new deal?

Dilly comes from a generation that remembers FDR, and the prospect of having a new smoking president in the form of Barack Obama really lit up her life because a New Deal is exactly what this country needs in relation to smoking.

"When I heard that Obama had quit smoking I couldn't believe it," says Dilly, "and I refuse to believe that he, too, had succumbed to the lies and exaggerations of the anti-smokers or had sold his soul for votes."

"What this country needs is a strong and true leader -- not a puppet," says Dilly. "He needs to be representative of the common man -- someone who smokes, drinks and likes a good time -- and puts forward his vices as strengths, not weaknesses to hide from the public or swear off."

"Obama is an attractive candidate in own right and didn't need to quit smoking for health reasons or anything else," says Dilly. "I don't believe non-smokers would have turned against him because he smokes, and even if some of them were so petty that they did this, their votes wouldn't have been worth winning."

"If a third of this country smokes, then at least one of the three candidates for nomination should be a smoker in order to represent our rights," says Dilly. "We don't want an anti-smoker like Hillary Clinton representing us and maybe going as far as banning the sale of tobacco products (if only to wean Chelsea off the habit, as if any parent can stop an adult child doing things they want to do!)."

"Everyone knows that Bush is a former alcoholic -- and may have been a former crackhead, too -- and while he necessarily had to give up his vices in order to run for the presidency, I don't see why Obama has to give up smoking in a similar bid to become pristine."

"There's a huge difference between an alcoholic and a smoker," says Dilly, "and if Bush had been able to continue drinking without getting drunk he would have been a lot more acceptable to the average Joe. There's something about a 'reformed' person that's irritating, right? And in an important job like the presidency you wonder whether they're paying more attention to fighting their demons than keeping an eye on the ball."

"For instance, in that shot of Bush at the school when told about 9/11 was his delay in acting due to respect for the kiddies or a fuddled brain?"

"One thing I know about cigarettes is that after a smoke I can focus my attention on a task more clearly than anyone I know who doesn't smoke," laughs Dilly, "and that's the sort of focused attention I want my president to have."

"Frankly, I think Obama has done more damage to his reputation by quitting because now the opposition is using his former habit against him in a manner that nobody dared use against Bush," sighs Dilly. "The anti-smokers have no manners or common decency whatsoever. If they can turn two-thirds of the nation against the other third -- just because they smoke -- then they can do incredible damage to Obama, whether he smokes or quits."

"For that reason, I think Obama should have stood his ground on smoking."

"It would be refreshing if any public figure -- and especially a presidential candidate -- actually stood up and defended their choice to smoke," says Dilly. "Because tobacco is a legal substance I don't really believe anyone should have to defend smoking it, but if he had to I would have liked to have heard Obama say: 'Yeah, I know smoking is a health hazard, but thankfully, because I live in a free country, I am able to make a personal choice about it -- and because choice is something we seem to have less of every day under the present regime, it's important for me to make this stand'."

"He might have gone on to say to all those highly impressionable people out there that he didn't encourage smoking -- it was a personal choice he had made, not to be seen as a sign that it's okay for everyone else to smoke -- and imagine the impact he would have had on a nation that's fast becoming a PC mess."

"By qutting, it almost looks as if Obama is admitting it was stupid of him to smoke -- so he's playing into the hands of the anti-smokers who make out all smokers are morons," sighs Dilly. "Frankly, I'm tired of being told by people who barely graduated from grade school that they are smarter and stronger than I am because they don't smoke and I do."

"Sometimes I feel like pinning a picture of a smoking Einstein on my front door so that people who knock and are greeted by myself in a similar mode have something to think about," laughs Dilly, "but I don't think most of the anti-smokers have the brains to make the connection."

"No, I don't wish to denigrate the anti-smokers -- that would make me as bad as they are," sighs Dilly, "but if they believe that our silence and refusal to quit equates with stupidity or weakness then we have to divest them of that thought."

"So why did Obama quit?" asks Dilly. "On one television show was it put forward that Obama was henpecked into quitting by his wife? Oh dear, more bad publicity because who wants a henpecked husband for president?"

"Obama himself said something about 'health' being his main reason for quitting, but come on, Obama, you're too intelligent to swallow the 'health' propaganda."

"We're electing a president -- a strong person to lead us -- and nobody should care if you smoke or not," says Dilly. "There are a lot worse things than smoking."

"Which brings me back to Hillary," sighs Dilly. "OMG, at least the Bush family isn't as anti-smoking as the Clintons -- I hear that Laura Bush and the twins enjoy a puff behind the scenes -- whereas the Clintons are supposedly old friends of John Banzahf of the relentless ASH organization."

"I choose to believe that Obama knows what he is doing and that all the bad publicity comes from a certain camp within his own party," says Dilly, "and whether he smokes or not, I still think he is the best person for the White House."

"Go Obama!"