0684 - Announcing

If you are following the far-off U.S. 2008 Presidential race, you know Barack Obama long ago said going into Iraq was wrong, and would be a mess. He was – and is – smart. Now, the OO said the same thing, in detail. This has led many Readers to ask whether the OO is about to announce his candidacy. Note: while the OO is living in Anguilla, he remains eligible for office. Also note: during this winter season, we are not sharing the Stateside pain. Not feeling pain is no good for a candidate. In any event, thank you, but the OO will not think about, file for exploratory Committee, or run. He does, however, volunteer to assist the proper candidate in keeping out of trouble, and thinking. As you know, no thinking has gone on in the White House for six years, so it's about time.

Meanwhile, our CSO (Chief Slogan Officer) is hard at work on his Obama project. Barack rhymes with "Iraq" and also "Arak" the liquor. So, "Out of Iraq if you vote for Barack" works nicely. "Sip an Arak and vote for Barack" does not. But, there are lots of rhymes for Obama. "From Oregon to Alabama, the one you need is named Obama" – that has pep. Yet, all the evidence is that voters are not crazy about electing someone smart, nor are they fond of candidates who think about difficult problems, because who wants to be reminded of difficult problems? So, it is easy to run against Bush, who is mercifully departing, but is it useful to remind voters that a smart guy is needed?

Because this campaign is starting so early, there are perils. The big problem for Democrats is, if they could force the U.S. to just get out of Iraq, the Iraqis will slaughter each other as they so love to do, and the Dems will be blamed for the mess. If they do nothing but carp, they will have a whole lot to carp about, but the Repubs will say they are just full of hot air. The smart move seems to be to let "The Surge" fail, and whatever follows it [The Purge?] fail too, and keep on a-carping. If, though, the Surge were to work, or Iraqis all converted to some merciful doctrine, then the Dems will look wrong. Little risk of that.

Our thoughtful Staff has a political invention to offer – something new. The idea is for a candidate to say before the nomination or election who will be part of the cabinet. For example, Bill Richardson, who is experienced in foreign policy, could be named as a prospective Secretary of State. Of course, he's running himself, but not high in the polls. Some other hapless chap or chapess could be named as Sec Defense, and so on. This would allow a great campaign, although there is also a great danger. If big problems like the cost of health care or Social Security are talked about sensibly, the voters will be depressed and turned off. No one likes hard truths. No free lunch? Wrong.

And speaking of Medicare and such, we've seen a series of TV ads saying that the Medicare drug program is working fine, don't change it. Now, we receive all sorts of incomprehensible brochures about Part D, and we do have quite few questions. You see, the way it works now, you subscribe with AARP, which spends a whole lot on TV ads, and then AARP selects United Health Care to run its complex "Plan', and then United has Walgreens or such to give out the pills, while United calculates what Medicare should pay and what you should pay. Four layers of bureaucracies isn't too efficient, is it? And if Medicare should not bargain for cheap prices with the drugmakers, then how come drugs are cheaper in Canada? And since all drugs can be ordered only in 90-day supply, tops, why not buy them in bottles of 90, instead of having pharmacists open bottles and count out by expensive trained hands? Just asking.

Next time: MoreMeds [OO #685]

| Printer-friendly page | Send this article to a friend |

Home