Watching the current slug feast between Obama and Hillary, it looks to me like a horrific ugly marriage that will never end, and that will eventually tear the family apart before it is finished. In family fights, when mum and dad fight like this, the kids always beg mum and dad to stop, or plead with them go somewhere in private and conduct their ugly cat and dog fight out of sight.

In marriage counseling we have a saying when teaching couples to fight fairly. We say “don’t throw the kitchen sink” at your partner. The kitchen sink approach is to throw everything negative you know and/or think you know about your partner without any desire to fix anything or heal anything. Rather you just want the scene to be as dirty and messy as possible. It is always delivered in blame, rage, fear, meanness and disgust, lased with vulgarities and underhanded comments that are designed to obfuscate what is really going on. When using the kitchen sink approach, the motive is to take everyone off guard and confuse everyone about what is happening. Such fighting is never about problem solving, never attempting to resolve, not trying to come together, or certainly not about attempting to heal. If married couples do this, they don’t want solutions, you just want to destroy each other, until the last one standing is the winner…..but then you have to ask, “what have you won”?

I know some democrats claim they will come together after this scene is finished. Don’t bet on it. In family fighting like this, I rarely see healing. Usually the lawyers get involved and the marriage ends in divorce with the kids being traumatised and the majority of the family assets eaten up in the legal fees.

If Obama wins…he has won a nasty fight that makes him look weak and insipient against the attack machinery that the Clinton people claim will come from the Republicans, so he better get used to this. Of course, the Republican machinery isn’t doing it yet (except for a few nasty pieces that McCain has distanced himself from), but the Clinton’s have convinced us this type of blood letting is essential to vet a candidate because the Rove approach is the only way to win elections.

If Hillary wins, she looks like a self declared champion who is nasty and fights below the belt. Anything is fair in “love and politics”. Does anyone trust the Clinton’s in anything they declare are their basic values? All along, I really believed they were anti-racist (as Bill said, he built his office in Harlem) ....but now it is clear that if racism gets you the win, you use racism. And then like Ferrarro, you never see the point about your own racism, you just go down declaring you were the one wronged.

I have been a marriage counselor for near 28 years and I have rarely seen a marriage fight as dirty as this one. This is beyond repair. The two should never have another debate, never talk to one another again, never appear together again. They need “boundaries”.....a term we therapist like to use to keep people apart because the fighting has become so nasty it cannot be healed “now”, if ever. They have poisoned the well in this relationship.

There are democrats who say this type of fighting is good for the country. And I suppose they would also argue that fighting to near death in a ultimate fighting match releases the national rage inside us, thus stopping it from spilling over into society? That is the justification video game makers give for their marketed violent products and making tons of money from such “virtual” violence. They cannot accept any responsibility for damaging impresssionable minds, so they manufacture mental justifications to keep the profits rolling in. 

Do we really wish to live with this type of meanness? Is this the type of leadership we need for the future? Where is the new type of leadership Obama promised us? He calls this the “silly” side of politics. I call it the ugly family fight made public to gain power. If he lets Hillary win, he is not yet the appropriate candidate for this time. He will need to be more seasoned and better skilled to deal with this political free for all. After all, Martin Luther King went to jail over 100 times in his quest for freedom and he only lived to 39. Gandhi was beaten many times before he made his mark in history. And Nelson Mandela stayed in jail for over 27 years before he helped changed South Africa. If Hillary wins, we have found a new all time ugliness in politics that is a deeper low than Karl Rove ever created. Congratulations to the Clinton’s and their machinery, you have found a new low in fighting below the belt, and throwing “the kitchen sink” at their opponent in the justification of “I shall fight for you from day one”.  Who needs this type of fighting? Who needs this form of politics? This is an exceptionally ugly public family fight, this is not political leadership in it’s finest hour.

Stephen Martin, MS. MFT.
Marriage and Family Therapist

I agree that the name-calling and finger-pointing of the Democratic candidates has been over-the-top, and diverts from the issues that voters are truly interested in.  However, I wouldn’t say that this is a new situation, having seen it in every presidential election in my lifetime. 

Ideally, candidates should focus on themselves, and what they can do for their country, rather than emphasize the shortcomings of the other contender(s).  Hillary & Barack had been longtime friends prior to this, and they insist that they will be after the election, too.  I have no doubt of this (as most others might), since they are deeply involved in the game of obtaining the highest seat in the country (never mind that the aforementioned seat is a real mess right now.  Who would want that job, anyway?) , and know the rules of that particular game.  It’s like sportsmen who hug after a game well-won (at least good sportsmen).  The loser will support the winning Democrat.

Look - even going into it with the highest ideals, the candidates can’t help being dragged into the muck - especially when their advisers and supporters are doing a lot of the dirty work behind the scenes to discredit the enemy - er - opponent.

It IS a game, a personality contest, a knock-down, drag-out fight to the finish.  Just because a woman is involved doesn’t change the rules.  Hillary has been seen as being ungracious, tough, and real bitch - but if a male candidate had done all that she has done so far, he would be lauded for his competitive tactics. 

McCain may be sitting back with a Cheshire Cat smile right now, but wait until November, and the gloves will be off.  Mark my words: McCain and his people will try in every way to smear the Democratic candidate, no holds barred.  This is not a defense of the extreme tactics we are seeing, but the stakes are high, and this race is unprecedented in its representation of candidates for office.  The last thing this is is a “marriage” or a “family”.  This is a contest, pure and simple.  My prediction is that Obama will win the presidency.  The American people will not be disillusioned with his election tactics, simply because, for the most part, the American people have a very short memory.  All we will want to know is :“What are you going to do for us now?”

thanks for your comments. I certainly hope you are right.
I fear I am correct and that what I see will “poison the well” for the Democrats.
Time will tell.
Like you I have my hope on Obama, but I fear he is not yet mature enough for the job ahead.
Agains, thanks for adding your 2 cents worth.
stephen

Deb Wong - 28 April 2008 12:40 PM

I agree that the name-calling and finger-pointing of the Democratic candidates has been over-the-top…. I wouldn’t say that this is a new situation, having seen it in every presidential election in my lifetime.

Indeed… if it were two separate parties, it would be called petty bi-partisan bickering. When it’s within the same party it’s then labeled as “unproductive” and “in-family fighting”... a shame that stance isn’t taken between aisles. This is no different, for the record.

Deb Wong - 28 April 2008 12:40 PM

[size=3]Hillary & Barack had been longtime friends prior to this, and they insist that they will be after the election, too.

(Spits coffee out in shock)...  whatever and whenever their “paths” crossed given Barack’s frighteningly short track record, was for photo ops and co-party united blathering rhetoric. I’m dying to know what you consider as a longtime friend. If we met at Cafe Lucca tomorrow, are we good friends a few weeks later? They are not long time friends. Long time friends of Barry are the Mr Wright, and of Hillary the Dick Morris’ of the world. Not sure if the latter has been able to keep a “long time friend”. Me thinks if you polled Hillary on whom she thought were a number of “long time friends” a year ago, ... how many have endorsed Obama since then… joke’s on you ‘Hills.

Deb Wong - 28 April 2008 12:40 PM

[size=3]
I have no doubt of this (as most others might), since they are deeply involved in the game of obtaining the highest seat in the country (never mind that the aforementioned seat is a real mess right now.  Who would want that job, anyway?) , and know the rules of that particular game.  It’s like sportsmen who hug after a game well-won (at least good sportsmen).  The loser will support the winning Democrat.

Very well put.. but somehow… some strange way… me thinks that if the partisanship came from another party, your lackadaisical labeling as “sportsmanship” won’t be found. Perhaps as soon as July… I’m remind you of “sportsmanship” in these parts come August and September if yer still ‘round these parts.

Deb, I hate to break to you. These two will kiss on camera…. but this is Hillary’s end game, this is what’s she’s sacrificed for decades for.

Deb Wong - 28 April 2008 12:40 PM

[size=3]
Look - even going into it with the highest ideals, the candidates can’t help being dragged into the muck - especially when their advisers and supporters are doing a lot of the dirty work behind the scenes to discredit the enemy - er - opponent.

Wow. Where’s the under his/her watch argument now? I’ve seen much blather against Bill Clinton and George Bush about the responsibility of “under their watch”... and we expect these three to be in the same position. It’s a relatively small campaign team (compared to what falls under the presidency)... surely the candidates can say “I don’t want this, that and ___”. McCain’s mistake is he’s been too nice… McCain will be confronted with Wright/Whitewater/etc… and give a comment around petty politics… yikes. ... what’s the point of hitting a fluffy softball pitch out of the park, I guess. Perhaps he’s saving ‘til the summer.

Deb Wong - 28 April 2008 12:40 PM

[size=3]
...if a male candidate had done all that she has done so far, he would be lauded for his competitive tactics.

Um, no Deb. If Condoleeza Rice was in Hillary’s position, I can safely and deftly assert your herein defense upon feminism would be grossly absent. Apologies, if I’m wrong, but… I feel safe in my assertion.

Deb Wong - 28 April 2008 12:40 PM

[size=3]
McCain may be sitting back with a Cheshire Cat smile right now, but wait until November, and the gloves will be off.  Mark my words: McCain and his people will try in every way to smear the Democratic candidate, no holds barred.

Wow… sportsmanship and “this is just politics” turns into smearing... and here I thought I’d have to wait two to three months for hypocrisy to rise, and it only took two paragraphs in April. Shocking.

Deb Wong - 28 April 2008 12:40 PM

[size=3]
All we will want to know is :“What are you going to do for us now?”

Very well put, but unfortunately… no one seems to be asking that question right now…unemployment is better that the 90s 80s and 70s, unless a pres is going to drill on the North Slope… nothing you can do about gas. We’ve been in Korea for 60 years, leaving Iraq in 6 months is folly… so what DO we want from a pres?

This is the Clinton / Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) / corporate wing of the Democratic Party looking out for its own.  For both the DLC and the GOP, Barack Obama has become a threat.  Here’s a candidate who’s been able to raise millions of $ seemingly at will—from People!  The corporations and lobbyists who’ve run Washington D.C. for the last 25 years are scared to death that this guy will actually win the nomination and go on to win the White House, and have no need for them, nor any obligation to them!!

As usual, the American public is distracted by the Hillary / Obama mud wrestling, American Idol, etc., but no one asks a simple question:  What motivation would John McCain have to adopt the failed, unpopular policies of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney across the board?  If a candidate were to run on issues, wouldn’t they distance themselves from the current occupants of the White House??

Between the time when a Dem candidate is chosen and the general election, we’ll be going to war in the middle east.  Iran, most likely.  McCain knows his only chance against Obama is to start a war & try to make Obama look “weak”.

That’s why both McCain and Hillary are attacking Obama now, and even attacking his pastor.  They’re trying to define him as a liberal radical, regardless of what his actual opinions are.

The way that Hillary is running her campaign disgusts me.  And I say that as one who supported Shirley Chisholm, and Geraldine Ferraro, and one who supported Hillary when she was in the White House.  When she talked about the “vast right-wing conspiracy,” she was right.  But instead of exposing that right-wing conspiracy and condemning its supporters and benefactors (i.e., Richard Mellon Scaife and Rupert Murdoch), she’s accepting donations from them!!  That’s as bad as John McCain sucking up to Bush & Cheney…

Dan Blick - 29 April 2008 10:09 AM

This is the Clinton / Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) / corporate wing of the Democratic Party looking out for its own.  For both the DLC and the GOP, Barack Obama has become a threat.  Here’s a candidate who’s been able to raise millions of $ seemingly at will—from People!  The corporations and lobbyists who’ve run Washington D.C. for the last 25 years are scared to death that this guy will actually win the nomination and go on to win the White House, and have no need for them, nor any obligation to them!!

Slow down Dan… for one, there is other ways to placiate special interests. What do you think about all the earmark spending that Obama has slid in in such a short tenure. That’s niave to expect that zero from lobbyists equates to unconflicted. It’s a pay me now, or pay me later scenario. At least with lobbyists there is disclosure beforehand, not a $20M handout riding like a lamprey on the side of a $500M gen obl. issuance. After all, the Clintons seemed to somehow make $100M post-presidency. Second, Barry is a bit too junior to get that tied up at this point. Now if we look at pork barrel spending (this is where the payoff happens down the road):

Barry - $100M+, in the last year alone
Hillary - $150M+, in the last year
McCain - $0, over the course of his senatorship

hypocrisy that just now that Obama and Clinton are voting for anti-earmark measures… measures still riddled with loopholes. the average American and voter has zero clue on the earmark, pork-barrel spending of the candidates.

Dan Blick - 29 April 2008 10:09 AM

As usual, the American public is distracted by the Hillary / Obama mud wrestling, American Idol, etc., but no one asks a simple question:  What motivation would John McCain have to adopt the failed, unpopular policies of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney across the board?

Actually it was McCain who has stood up quite a bit to Bush.. McCain was anti-Rumsfeld long before many Dems. It was McCain who was pro-surge (which has been quite successful).. months and months, and months before it was enacted.

Dan Blick - 29 April 2008 10:09 AM

...McCain knows his only chance against Obama is to start a war & try to make Obama look “weak”.

This is too easy of a softball fluffy pitch… I’ll leave this rhetoric be ...for now.

Dan Blick - 29 April 2008 10:09 AM

That’s why both McCain and Hillary are attacking Obama now, and even attacking his pastor.  They’re trying to define him as a liberal radical, regardless of what his actual opinions are.

Well, because he is… even the left, errrr “mainstream” media has deftly and categorical defined him as the most left senator on the Hill. Refutable, whether it’s him or someone else, but’s clear how far left-wing Barry is. Obama himself has stated he clearly and careful chose his friends for a reason. He should at least answer questions around these issues, vs the persona of “how dare you have the gall to ask me”... it’s a long summer, he will answer, and we’ll finally get to know Barry, or is it Barack?

Dan Blick - 29 April 2008 10:09 AM

The way that Hillary is running her campaign disgusts me.  And I say that as one who supported Shirley Chisholm, and Geraldine Ferraro, and one who supported Hillary when she was in the White House.  When she talked about the “vast right-wing conspiracy,” she was right.  But instead of exposing that right-wing conspiracy and condemning its supporters and benefactors (i.e., Richard Mellon Scaife and Rupert Murdoch), she’s accepting donations from them!!  That’s as bad as John McCain sucking up to Bush & Cheney…

Wait, the same right wing conspiracy that she said was making up Monica Lewinsky, when her husband was/is a known chronic philanderer. Well it depends what “is”... is. She’s been sacrificing all morals for the eye on the prize, and those two phonies will be divorced north of ‘09. Bill “Pump Head” is clearly acting like Reagan 20 years younger, or clearly sabotaging her campaign.

Barack Obama has clearly indicated that he wants judges who make social policy instead of just applying the law. He has already tried to stop young violent criminals from being tried as adults. We’ll finally understand what “change”, “change” and “change” means, when he’s put to task and we can issue-by-issue (since he has little record, nor experience) realize he’s for protecting criminals, attacking business, increasing government spending, promoting a sense of envy and grievance, raising taxes on people who are productive and subsidizing those who are not. Doesn’t matter what we change to, so long as their is change.

Holy moley!  I’ll start at the end…

> Wait, the same right wing conspiracy that she said was making up Monica Lewinsky, when her husband was/is a known chronic philanderer.

There’s no denying Bill Clinton’s philandering.  But if you “follow the money” in the effort to investigate, entrap, and impeach Bill Clinton, you’ll see what kind of role Richard Mellon Scaife and other Republican benefactors played.  Just because there was a conspiracy doesn’t mean that Bill & Hillary were, or are, saints.

> He has already tried to stop young violent criminals from being tried as adults.

If you call voting “Present” (not “No”) as “trying to stop” Republican State Senator Christine Radogno’s bill to have children as young as 15 charged as adults in violent crimes, you might have a point.  But consider the following:  1) there was no evidence that charging young criminals as adults would reduce crime;  2) this would, of course, apply to the Death Penalty;  3) this vote came just before the Republican governor of Illinois, George Ryan, declared a moratorium on executions because nearly half of the prisoners on Illinois’ death row were found not guilty, especially when DNA evidence became available.

Just because Obama doesn’t show the same enthsiastic support for punishments that don’t work doesn’t mean that he’s “soft on crime.”  Note: The U.S., with only 5% of the world’s population, has almost a quarter of the world’s prisoners.  (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/us/23prison.html?hp)  Do we really have that many bad people?  Or is there something else going on?

> Actually it was McCain who has stood up quite a bit to Bush…

Huh??  Sure he did, *before* his campaign nearly collapsed.  But since he aligned himself 100% with Bush/Cheney policies earlier this year and flip-flopped on torture, the religious right, etc., he hasn’t stood up to Bush at all—except if you count his visit to New Orleans, where he said that he would’ve handled Katrina a lot better than Bush.  (Aside from the obvious humor, remember that on 8/29/2005, while the water was still rising in N.O., Bush & Air Force One flew to Phoenix, at taxpayer expense, to visit John McCain on his 69th birthday and do a photo-op.)

Between now and November, you aren’t going to see John McCain standing up to, or disagreeing with, the White House.  You’ll see.

Which begs the question:  If John McCain is elected, whom do we get?  The old “Maverick” John McCain?  Or George W. Bush’s third term?  If McCain is President, who’s in charge??

BTW, if you still believe in the “liberal media” myth, you’re probably too far gone to warrant any more time or effort.  Seriously, it’s time to look past the major media and get informed.  Then we can have a reasonable discussion.

What the major media is doing now is a take-down—similar to previous take-downs on Howard Dean, Al Gore, and John Kerry.  If you saw the hideous debate last week on ABC, it’s obvious.  And if anyone thinks that Hillary will be spared a similar take-down if she’s the nominee, think again!

“We paid three billion for these stations.  We’ll tell you what the news is.  The news is what we say it is!”
—Fox Station Manager David Boylan

Hillary & Barack had been longtime friends prior to this, and they insist that they will be after the election, too.

(Spits coffee out in shock)...  whatever and whenever their “paths” crossed given Barack’s frighteningly short track record, was for photo ops and co-party united blathering rhetoric. I’m dying to know what you consider as a longtime friend.

For the record, I’m just quoting Obama’s statement about himself and Hillary in an interview.  I haven’t heard anything from Hillary about it.

...if a male candidate had done all that she has done so far, he would be lauded for his competitive tactics.

Um, no Deb. If Condoleeza Rice was in Hillary’s position, I can safely and deftly assert your herein defense upon feminism would be grossly absent. Apologies, if I’m wrong, but… I feel safe in my assertion.

Actually, you’re wrong on that point - as a woman who has been around prior to “Womens Lib”, I am sensitive to the differences in the treatment of any woman when in what was a traditionally male arena.  As much as I disagree with Rice, I do admire that she has succeeded despite her sex & race - which at one time not that long ago would not have been achievable in our country.

McCain may be sitting back with a Cheshire Cat smile right now, but wait until November, and the gloves will be off.  Mark my words: McCain and his people will try in every way to smear the Democratic candidate, no holds barred.

Wow… sportsmanship and “this is just politics” turns into smearing... and here I thought I’d have to wait two to three months for hypocrisy to rise, and it only took two paragraphs in April. Shocking.

(Laughing) Yep, you’re right…I’m a Democrat….I can be almost as hypocritical as any Republican.

All we will want to know is :“What are you going to do for us now?”

Very well put, but unfortunately… no one seems to be asking that question right now…unemployment is better that the 90s 80s and 70s, unless a pres is going to drill on the North Slope… nothing you can do about gas. We’ve been in Korea for 60 years, leaving Iraq in 6 months is folly… so what DO we want from a pres?

For starters - what I want is a president who does not profit from oil, one who will not blame Congress for high gas prices because they wouldn’t allow oil drilling in Alaska - instead of admitting that he failed miserably in finding alternatives to fossil fuel, rather than just finding more ways to drill into the earth.  Watch the documentary “Whatever Happened to the Electric Car?”, and get back to me.

Actually, you’re wrong on that point - as a woman who has been around prior to “Womens Lib”, I am sensitive to the differences….t she has succeeded despite her sex & race - which at one time not that long ago would not have been achievable in our country.

Let me be clearer. If you opposed Rice’s views.. could you.. (with the same viewpoint) be able to label some of the opposition she would receive as easily as your are to jump to Ms Clinton’s defense as sexism? Your going to say yes here, but your partisanship has already shine through brightly. Were you.. giving your storied history, enthralled that another woman was appointed a Sec of State, much less a black woman, much less a Republican black woman… or did you banter about some tie in to the back of an oil tanker having her name on it?

Wow… sportsmanship and “this is just politics” turns into smearing... and here I thought I’d have to wait two to three months for hypocrisy to rise, and it only took two paragraphs in April. Shocking.

(Laughing) Yep, you’re right…I’m a Democrat….I can be almost as hypocritical as any Republican.
All we will want to know is :“What are you going to do for us now?”

Agree.. so when do we, i.e. the “mainstream” media start asking that and when does he/she start answering those questions? I’m dying to know what “change’ means. And “change” for the sake of “change” is most oft deadly.

Very well put, but unfortunately… no one seems to be asking that question right now…unemployment is better that the 90s 80s and 70s, unless a pres is going to drill on the North Slope… nothing you can do about gas. We’ve been in Korea for 60 years, leaving Iraq in 6 months is folly… so what DO we want from a pres?

For starters - what I want is a president who does not pr…il drilling in Alaska - instead of admitting that he failed miserably in finding alternatives to fossil fuel, rather than just finding more ways to drill into the earth.  Watch the documentary “Whatever Happened to the Electric Car?”, and get back to me.

I’m sorry, you must be ... nevermind.

Bush should admit HE didn’t find the solution… this is .. I’m sorry Deb, laughable.. where’s Barrys’ 250 page solution for new energy sources…. not only in cars, but why aren’t we developing clean safe nuclear energy plants like France and Germany (since I’m bombarded with how European nations do pretty much everything better than the dumb old USA). ...where has OUR now Democrat-led congress been… it’s been 2 years now and I see NOTHING in action, moreover the incentives for big business to drive this… ? Moreover, my point is rhetorical hot-air. I don’t seek an/the answer.

Gas has been on the cheap for the last 20 years, economically speaking. We’ve been getting off, gas is about where it should be, take away the taxation on it, and we’d be quite up on it.

Dan Blick - 30 April 2008 02:33 AM

Between now and November, you aren’t going to see John McCain standing up to, or disagreeing with, the White House.  You’ll see.

Which begs the question:  If John McCain is elected, whom do we get?  The old “Maverick” John McCain?  Or George W. Bush’s third term?  If McCain is President, who’s in charge??

You’ll get John McCain, that’s whom you will get. .. it’s folks like you whom seem to blatantly tie in (or “beg the question”) on the party line and say Bush=McCain. It’s like saying FDR=Truman.

McCain can manage Iraq > Bush, Obama, or Clinton. He’s been right on handling post-occupation so far. Leaving in 60-days is folly.

The topic of this posting has to do with the “...blame, rage, fear, meanness and disgust, laced with vulgarities and underhanded comments” of the current Democratic campaign.  I do completely agree that this is not how it should be, that debates should be about the issues, not about name-calling or personal comments about the other candidate(s) contained within the argument.  I have never seen a presidential election in my lifetime where that wasn’t the case.  I don’t know that it is possible. It would be great, it really would!  Imagine having mutual respect for another’s opinions, even if they differ from your own.  That would be an enlightened campaign, indeed.

However, I think that it has been proven by some of the responses here that we can’t even have a discussion without personal statements interjected into comments made about other participants in this forum.  If we can’t even accomplish that much, how can we expect our candidates to do the same?

I wrote the piece in regard to human relationships inside families and marriages, because that is my professional work. I can tell you most marriages and families do not communicate in this way. I was comparing the relationship of family to a political party and was expressing my disgust at intelligent human beings calling their opponent “elitists” and then linking them to very angry black “unbalanced” preachers. I was disgusted that said candidate pandered to the baser nature of human beings, and I was upset that the party has allowed this cat fight to continue. 
I see marriages and families all the time that co-operate, love each other, and have minor issues that need some improvement. I never see family fights like the political fight that is occurring inside the democratic party right now. The divorce lawyers see those type of fights, and from my experience they make a very good living dealing with such intense fighting.
Did not one of the candidates state that it takes a village to raise a child? I agree with that proposition. I agree that a nation is just a group of families joining together to share the common good. But we have degenerated in politics to the ugliest side of human behavior and as a family therapist I am disgusted that this behavior is continuing.
I shall let everyone decide for themselves who is calling whom disgusting names. I shall let the rest of you decide who wishes who destroyed by innuendo and the “kitchen sink” approach to fighting, that every psychotherapist knows is totally unproductive in building human relationships.
I was hoping that we would all grow up and realize that it does take a village to raise a child, and it does take a village to run the country. This type of fighting is not village producing. This type of language is not peacemaking. It is designed to destroy reputations. It is designed to win the job of the highest office in the land at whatever cost. And it is political warfare at it’s ugliest.
As I said, the party needs a divorce from this type of fighting. Eventually the planet also needs a divorce from this type of fighting if we are to survive. But I guess that is hoping we would all be just a little more civilized than we are capable of being. But is it too much to ask the candidates for President of the greatest nation on earth to act a little more responsibly before “trashing” their opponent? Or do we have to witness the ugliest form of human behavior acted out upon the public scene just so someone can “win” the job? As I said in my original article, when the last person standing is declared the winner, one has to ask, what have they won?