The New York Times Endorses Clinton

The NYT in their endorsement of Clinton "opposed President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and we disagree with Mrs. Clinton’s vote for the resolution on the use of force." Yet they still endorsed her explaining that "That’s not the issue now; it is how the war will be ended."

Yet Clinton very pragmatic and establishment foreign policy shows how Clinton will make decisions. Clinton's recent deceptive and very negative campaign against Obama is also significant. I hardly feel this kind of deceptive campaigning is what is going to bring a refreshing new approach to governance in this country.

We are trapped in our media echo-chamber and it is making us more and more ahistorical in our perspective. This only makes us more easily malleable to the intentions of those power. People perennially want change in their presidential campaigns and never get it? Why? They/we are unwilling players in The Change Game and they forget or lose their ability to see how they are being manipulated by the powerful for their vote as well as their dollar. People of influence get influential because they know how to use words, gestures and iconic forms to manipulate people and to convince them that this is the Change Agenda or our candidate is the Change Candidate.

We get polished leaders with much experience but with little understanding of complex and interrelated issues, because many in power really dont want the public to know what they are up to and more simply people are too overwhelmed with their personal duties and obligations as consumers and workers.

For example, we can only understand radicalism in Iran today if we look at the complete history of American policies starting in the 50s and leading to the overthrow of a popular leader by the CIA. Another example is that Saddam was not more upfront with the world about the fact he had no WMDs because he felt it was important to make a strong show to Iran his mortal enemy.

We have a system that sweeps complex issues quickly under the rug (as the Times did in its overlooking of Clinton's vote on Iraq and then Iran and also with regards to it underhanded campaign tactics), and instead prefers to fixate on horserace mentality when it comes to politics. The unsustainability of our socioeconomic system seems painfully evident in our never-ending presidential campaigns. The public elects corrupt and out of touch leaders, because the powerful frame the public discourse so that such candidates are the ones that rise to the top.

People then become cynical because the elites that run our society appear to not really care about doing what is right, but rather what is expedient to their fuel their ambitions for power and so they seek "change".

The bottom line is that experience and pragmatism almost always ends up trumping experience, as there is so much momentum against those who put forward an authentic vision of change in the political arena.

Real Change is not a beauty contest but forward by spinmasters rather its about cultivating a serious national discussion that leads to a deeper understanding of what is wrong with our society today and how to change it and so it is inherently incompatible with presidential politics. For example, the "mainstream" contenders seem totally uncritical in their support of the recent stimulus package to prop up a broken economy and yet what does this do to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure or to address the growing evidence (and pricetag) of global climate change?