This issue was touched upon slightly by our essay questions of today. I chose not to take this question, but feel it is important enough to address. In recent weeks Hillary and Chelsea Clinton have repeatedly dodged questions they deemed as too personal and more specifically as "irrelevant to the campaign."
I hereby declare: Bullshit!
How can one who aspires to represent and lead 300 Million people assume that anything about themselves is off limits? Whether or not is important or relevant shouldn't be for the candidate to decide but rather for the people to decide.
I think the matter of a candidates church attendance is of great importance to her campaign. Not for any religious reason, as I am a devout atheist, but rather as an indicator of how full of shit a person really is. They all spout off about God being on their side, and being a source of inspiration or some such thing but how can a person really claim religiosity without actively participating in any religion? For that matter, how can any candidate take any stance on gun issues without being willing to talk about the last time they fired a gun - if ever?
And then their's Monica Lewinsky. The most famous BJ in history had a direct impact on her family dynamics yet they managed to work through it somehow. How one handles their problems within their family reflect how they handle problems outside the family. Therefore how can this type of question be off limits? Especially when her biggest hurdle is her inability to come across as a human being. I'm sure it's a painful reminder of things past, but they're sure as hell relevant now. They're not relevant for any reason better than that the American People think they're relevant, and as far as I'm concerned, that's enough of a reason for anything.
No comments:
Post a Comment