Dear God

"Dear Shokai:
I was shocked to read your blog this morning. I believe the last time I spoke with you you were in support of Obama. Obviously your views have changed. I'm sad."

It's been correctly noted in the past that sarcasm doesn't always translate well into print, but since when have I used terms like "latte-sipping," "fancy-pants high-tech," and "elitist snob," much less state that a presidential candidate should be judged by his bowling scores?

It was meant as a satire, or at least sarcasm. It was a joke. Sorry if it didn't translate well into print. I was concerned that I might be misunderstood, so I purposely made the language so over the top that I hoped no one would mistake it for anything other than a lampoon, but unfortunatley, I went so far that it ultimatley sounded too close to the actual words of the right-wing pundits.

One of the many problems with 21st Century American politics is that the issues of economics, foreign and environmental policy, and civil rights and liberties have gotten so complex and difficult many potential voters and the media have simply given up on them, and Presidential elections have become simple popularity contests - "which candidate is most like me?" And the candidates have to pretend that at heart they're not really college-educated millionaires, but plain, ordinary shot-and-a-beer workin' folks, just like you and me.

I've got news for you: George W. Bush isn't really a simple Texas rancher who can't pronounce the word "nuclear" right. He's a Yale- and Harvard-educated son of an ultra-wealthy and powerful New England dynasty. Hillary Clinton went to Yale, too (Yale Law, after an undergraduate degree from Wellesley) and married a Rhodes scholar. And, yes, Barry went to Harvard Law, as well as Columbia and something called Occidental College.

But Americans seem to want to cast their votes for the candidate they perceive as the most like them (somehow I'm reminded of the chant from Tod Browning's Freaks, "One of us"), and as a result, as Bill Maher noted, we've been stuck with an idiot president for eight years just because some rednecks thought he'd be someone they'd like to have a beer with. The same voters who rejected John Kerry because he gave long, complex answers to questions about involved and complex issues.

Personally, I want a President to be smarter than me, to know the difference between Shiites and Sunnis ("I thought they were all Muslims" - W.), to be willing to study complex issues and not rely on reflex and dogma to reach decisions, and to be secure enough about his own beliefs and policies that be can listen to - and tolerate - advise and viewpoints other than his own.

Barack Obama, John McCain and, oddly, Cindy McCain, have all said that they are planning to run campaigns based on issues and policies, not on negativity and personalities. That would be refreshing, but don't count on it - voters don't have the patience to listen to policy and platform discussions. They want simple sound bites and personality clues - which one wind surfs? which one is old? which one has a pastor that said "god damn America"?

Ultimately, no president really gets to realize all of his campaign promises and pledges. It's the Congress that passes the laws to raise or lower taxes and that declares wars. It's the Supreme Court that rules on the constitutionality of laws and that (theoretically) protects our rights and freedoms.

It's important to know where a candidate stands on these issues, to be sure, but it's also important to get a sense of how he will react to the myriad challenges and crises that will inevitably arise during his term. Is he a hot-head? Is he dogmatic and inflexible? Or is he calm, creative and conscientious? Barack Obama seems to me the embodiment of the latter attributes and is my selected candidate for President of the United States of America.

Plus he plays a mean game of basketball.