• Tribes, now and then • Tired of Clinton’s shenanigans Tribes, now and then “Hope” and “Change We Can Believe In” are the cornerstones of Barrack Obama’s campaign for president of the United States. A “hope/change” theme also appears to
• Tribes, now and then
• Tired of Clinton’s shenanigans
Tribes, now and then
“Hope” and “Change We Can Believe In” are the cornerstones of Barrack Obama’s campaign for president of the United States.
A “hope/change” theme also appears to reflect the desires and wishes of many people living on Kaua‘i. Odds for such an event taking place appears stronger nationally than locally in our community.
Why do I say this?
Being a history buff I enjoy looking to the past, comparing human behavior and actions with the present. One of the darkest chapters in America’s history was its Native-American Indian policy which proves to be a good comparison.
Looking back in time I envision a fort in Indian Territory with defeated native tribes being herded onto reservations to begin lives of displacement, abuse, corruption and abandonment. Cultural rights, freedoms and customs once enjoyed were stripped away from them after endless defeats in battle resulting in being told where to live, on reservations, and to becoming wards of the state. They acquired no new rights or freedoms and therefore could not vote to improve their lives.
Jumping back into today’s world, I envision a Pacific island with an abandoned population of citizens learning the lessons of displacement, abuse and corruption. Their precious cultural rights and freedoms being willingly stripped from them as a result of, not defeat, but from surrendering their right to vote; of depending upon “others,” the wrong “others,” who nurture policies of abandonment. Most likely our children will reap the consequences of parent’s failures by being told where to live (the Mainland?) destined to becoming wards of a large state bureaucracy. Is that the “hope/change” theme we have to look forward to?
Native American tribes were not given the right to vote in the 19th century leaving no alternatives other than to surrender to defeat in order to survive. The 21st century Pacific island tribe had the right to vote given to them at birth, but chose rather to surrender this privilege out of a sense of laziness and ignorance. Comparing “surrender and defeat” to “laziness and ignorance” there emerges portraits of “character vs. weakness, wisdom vs. irresponsibility.” Can “Hope” and “Change We Can Believe In” have any meaning in our lives when instead of electing leaders we elect manipulators?
John Hoff
Lawa‘i
Tired of Clinton’s shenanigans
I’m tired of Hillary Clinton’s shenanigans. Her campaign is beginning to resemble the Swift Boat episode of 2004. It’s obvious she realizes that the only way she can win the nomination is by using gutter politics. We are all familiar with many other instances, but I just want to comment on two recent examples.
Two weeks ago, I watched as Hillary, in a speech, said, “I have a health plan to cover everyone. My opponent has no plan. If you want health care I’m your candidate.”
She wasn’t referring to McCain either. Blatantly false.
That also applies to Geraldine Ferraro’s reprehensible comments. Hillary initially “disagreed” mildly and belatedly, but did not “reject” her statements, as she earlier required of Obama. It is true Obama gets some votes “because he’s black.” However, based on my observations, Hillary is getting far more votes just because she’s a woman. Also, there are a number of votes Obama loses among whites (probably primarily men, but also some women) just because he’s black.
It isn’t politically correct to voice these sentiments, but it is a major factor for many inside the voting booth. (A recent poll showed the race of a candidate was a factor for more Hillary voters than Obama voters.) Also, how about the 13 percent of Americans (from a recent poll) who think Obama is a Muslim? These are certainly not Muslims and virtually all will automatically reject him for this reason. Also, Rush Limbaugh’s call for Republicans to vote for Hillary is becoming a factor, as 25 percent of Hillary’s vote in Mississippi was from Republicans. We know how they will vote in November.
There are certainly some men who will refuse to vote for a woman (though I suspect that many of them will also refuse to vote for a black). However, it is obvious to any knowledgeable person that in this campaign it is more, not less, advantageous to be a white woman than a black man, especially one named Barack Hussein Obama. A black man with a “good” Anglo-Saxon name would probably fare slightly better.
Lastly, the inference that Obama wouldn’t be where he is if he weren’t “who he is” must be taken in the context of who the person is who is supposedly “disadvantaged” by Obama’s “advantages.” Where would Hillary be if she had never been Hillary Rodham Clinton, but was Hillary Rodham? Without being brought into the White House she would be, like millions of other American highly intelligent, articulate, ambitious, aggressive, white women, perhaps a high-priced Wall Street lawyer, or high-ranking business executive, but certainly she would not be in the race for the White House.
Lisa Burket
Lihu‘e
