photo by Amsterdamned
A good friend of mine Pryanka Joshi, an Indian journalist in America posted her impressions of attending one Obama´s performance. She says she is “not covering the Obamamania” and yet she preferrs him over Hillary.
As an honest journalist, Pryanka asks if there is actually something more behind the charisma and the Obama`s spirit of “change”:
Lo and behold, in no time, this is what the first voter results started saying too, and it took no time for the candidates to start saying they were the ones with “real change” on their minds.
But, what ARE those new ideas? Where are they? Are they too afraid to be shot down? Are these candidates’ offices full of spin doctors, and poll pundits? Why do they not employ think tanks to come up with solutions to global problems? What is their answer to Outsourcing? To the war? To Pakistan? To education? We’re hearing, “Ya, we’ve gonna do great things”, but have no idea what they may be?!? How can they convince a whole country to vote them into power without concretely sharing their ideas? Isn’t that absurd?
All these questions are very reasonable, but… That passage reminds me of an abstract from one modern Russian novel where one young woman is thinking of voting for the Russian president. She ask herself a simple question: with whom of the candidates she would fearlessly and carelessly leave her child over a day (a candidate as a baby-sitter if you may). The one whom she would entrust her own child, is the right one. Not the one with the best and most attractive ideas!
I guess that voting, at least the female voting must be based on some other things than the actual programme or the ideas of the candidate. These are probably not that important. As in all other types of human relationships, trust is probably the most important and even the most desirable (after love).
I wonder how many of you think that way and how do you like the idea of “babysitter”-candidate?