Red State Dave, Blue State Greg both right on Hillary issue
My interest in our American culture began formally at the Seton Hall Graduate School of American Studies and has continued. While I acknowledge that this covers a long span of time, my kids are wrong when they suggest that my time in school is now labeled "ancient history." More importantly however is the lesson to be learned by reading your "debate" between Red State Dave and Blue State Greg. Since the piece is billed as a "political" discussion by two learned journalists, I can only hope it is meant to be a spoof of the modern voter's approach to decision making on Election Day.

Red State Dave's point against Democrat Hillary Clinton is that some private individuals spent $1.5 million of their own money on her 60th birthday party. So?! He complains that money of that magnitude would "pay for a whole block of houses in [his] subdivision." Interesting that a "Red State kind of guy" would be appalled at private people spending their money how they wish. There is a hint of jealousy as he does mention his wife being unwilling to spend even $20 on his day.

His next swipe at Hillary's worthiness to hold high office is the fact that her husband was a "twotiming president." Oh yes, he is also taken aback by the people at Hillary's party calling her "Mrs. President." Did I mention some plane crash as a reflection of the Clinton character? Unfortunately, Blue State Greg was equally typical in his response from the blue perspective.

With a world full of issues, BSG begins with a big "so's your old man" statement: "at least Hillary has friends. If George Bush was counting on friends to throw him a party …" But happily, that isn't his best salvo. He really gets tough when he objects to "Darth Vader and Lord What's His Name trying to blow up the universe …" And old blue really pulls out the deep political analysis by referring to the president of the United States as "the Idiot-in-Chief."

Contrary to what you might think, I do not hold RSD or BSG accountable for their approach. They are writing for the average American voter and frankly, this seems to be typical of the depth of political analysis I have heard from just about everyone over the past 30 or 40 years. When did anyone last see a thoughtful, in-depth discussion of issues in a campaign? If we believe Red State Dave and Blue State Greg, voter apathy is only outdone by voter silliness. Blue State Greg would have us believe that insults and childish namecalling will win voters for his side. Red State Dave seems to think that voters should be swayed by the strength of his anger that Hillary's friends are willing to spend more money on her birthday party than his own wife will on his. Sadly, they are probably both right.

Gene Goellner

Red Bank