Sunday, January 21, 2007

The first presidential candidate...

Hehe. Thoughts on a candidate field filled with firsts from Don Surber:

ABC News reported Bill Richardson is running for president. He becomes the first major Hispanic presidential candidate.

He follows Hillary, the first ex-first lady presidential candidate.

Who followed Barack Obama, the first Muslim-fathered presidential candidate.

Who followed Biden, the first hair-plugged presidential candidate.

Who followed Kucinich, the first elfin presidential candidate.

Who followed McCain, the first ex-POW presidential candidate.

Who followed Mitt Romney, the first Mormon presidential candidate since his brain-washed daddy.

And so on and so on.

Can’t we just have a presidential candidate who does not front for some minority group, real or imaginary? You know, someone who runs on qualifications based on something other than chromosome or pigmentation or genetic code.

I think Surber makes a good point. Wanna know something else I'm tired of? Using the word "historic" to describe everything. "It was a historic day on Capitol Hill today as Nancy Pelosi became the first female speaker." Not convnced? Think that really deserves to be described as historic? How about this? "Obama's presidential bid is one of a historic nature?" Oh, that's true because he's, what, black? Muslim (though he doesn't openly embrace this)? Why is that historic? How about this one, uttered this morning on Fox News Sunday: "Hillary Clinton kicked off her historical campaign for the Presidency..."

Now by their very definitions (the fact that they are happening) all of these events are historical so why we have to constantly preface things such as these with the term "historic" or "historical" is beyond me. Does anybody out there have an answer?

Technorati Tags:

powered by performancing firefox


Post a Comment

<< Home