|
Edited on Fri Aug-13-04 07:31 AM by Nimrod
This a two part question:
1) Must a candidate appear flawless to get your personal support? 2) Do you think a candidate needs to appear flawless to get elected?
Something has been going on for a long time and has become blatantly apparent in this particular election. It's the concept that an elected leader must appear to be saintly, lily-white, perfect, and utterly without error to win the support of the American people. Look at the nitpicking, sh^t shoveling, and mudslinging, not just that which appears in this presidential campaign but in every other debated issue. The rules are "accept NO blame, admit NO failure, concede NO points, and zero in on the tiniest flaw in the other guy's argument".
Just once, I'd like to see someone faced with an error in their own judgment stand up, look me dead in the eye, say "Hey, I f^cked up", and then sit down without offering any more excuses. I know I'm not perfect, and rather than being inspired by other people trying to appear perfect, I'm turned off by them. I make a LOT of mistakes and when I do I have to admit them and try to fix them. So if someone wants to impress me his best bet is to say "Hey, I screwed the pooch and now I'm going to try to fix it" rather than try to spin a personal failure out of existence.
Bill Clinton was not perfect, but he remains a man I admire deeply and hope to get to meet personally some day. John Kerry is not perfect - in fact he's done some things that have bothered me greatly - but I still admire him and will vote for him as the best chance we have to pull ourselves out of the deep sh^t we're in. It's not a "lesser of two evils" situation, it's the understanding that the flawless human being does not exist.
So what do you think, considering the current mindset of America? Could a leader get elected by admitting his flaws or must he try to appear an uberman without error even though such a thing is a complete and total lie?
(editted fore speeling, but I ws akting on badd imfornation)
|