The US South, it is said, is a region altogether different from the rest of the country. Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana are caught in a time trap. Like Amish country, nothing has really changed there. Of course, the quality of life has become increasingly better but beneath the skin all remains the same. Race prejudices simmer, the old decaying rich families still struggle to keep up appearances and the Evangelical Churches carry on just the same. This is the land which gave Roosevelt the nick-name ‘Ted’. The UK Independent reads into the incident of Roosevelt sparing the life of a game-bear which had been tied to a tree for being shot by him. This widely reported incident just served to make Roosevelt more popular. What the UK Independent reporter misses is that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have unique advantages and shortfalls in the Deep South. For one, Obama is black, has a name which does not really sound Christian and is a known Islamic sympathizer. WASPs (White Anglo Saxon and Protestant) may turn to Mrs. Clinton for solace in this situation. Yet Obama has a solid reputation as an Evangelical rhetorician. And he is a man. Mrs. Clinton’s strong points as a loyal, conservative wife can hardly counter the South’s patriarchy.
TimesOnline UK presents to us the Presidential Elections as a battle reminiscent of the American Civil War. Tom Baldwin spins a tale of fierce rivalries and Democratic aspirations. John McCain is out of the race, Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, recently declared. Beneath the patina of Obama and Mrs. Clinton’s race for the Presidential seat, an alarming fact inadvertently comes to light. Baldwin pretty casually mentions that the fundraising associated with events organized by the Democrats has surpassed all previous records in terms of the money and turnouts involved. What we tend to miss out is the sheer scale of organizing and financial backing involved in any Presidential election in the US. Electoral watchdogs worldwide maintain that even if 10% of that wealth was distribute to the wretched of the earth, then there would be significant alleviation of poverty. Yet when one reads such reports about the Presidential elections, one is nauseated at the naked show of power to a starving world. The First World Press forgets that the issues at stake are not really who becomes the next President, but whether the incumbent will deliver on promises. We need a messianic leader to lead the world at large. Both the main contenders for all their rhetoric do not fit the bill. Any brouhaha over them, thus, is an awful wastage of time and resources.
Source: UK Independent, TimesOnline UK
Image: Washington Post
