Senator John Kerry's campaign for the Democratic nomination for the U.S. presidency received a boost yesterday when he won primaries or caucuses in five of the seven states polling its voters. Senator Edwards, on the other hand, won in his home state of South Carolina and proclaimed this as evidence that he too could defeat George Bush next November. Citing his (apparently) wider appeal, Senator Kerry stated that one could not "cherry-pick the presidency."
An odd usage, no? The image is one of plucking the cherry from the top of an ice cream sundae but I'm not entirely positive that it fits the situation in which Kerry used it.
The phrase is used, over here anyway, to mean choosing the best bits of something to take and leaving the rest for someone else. So if you were selling that collection of books that you have amassed over the last five hundred years or so and I were buying, I'd be "cherry-picking" if I took a few really valuable ones and left you with a lot that you couldn't subsequently sell at bargain basement prices.
So the phrase as used would have to mean that you can't take just the bits of the job of President that you like (nice house, lots of people who say yes to you all the time, White House interns - that sort of thing) and let someone else deal with the economy, the wars and such like.
So I agree, in the context it seems a very poor phrase to use.
"Cherry pick" was a wordcrafter word of the day in August of this year. I agree with Bob that this usage is unclear, and I wonder if Kerry knows what the phrase means. If he does know what it means, he may be saying that the southerners can't just "pick their choice" for the presidency; they must consider the rest of the country. However, this context would be an insult to Kerry (the southerners prefer Edwards), so I doubt that's his intent.
Since the UK media has been covering the US Presidential contest in some detail, the whole concept of democracy (and especially the US version thereof) has been exercising my mind.
It should be a rule of the democratic system that the people can choose their ruler from all a country's people and thus, by extension, that anyone could be a candidate for election.
The ruler of the world's most powerful country is, however, chosen only from a very narrow group - probably well under 1% of society. To be a Presidential candidate you need not be honest, caring or even clever.
You do, though, need to be a multi-millionaire.
Are there grounds for suggesting that the amount that can be spent on compaigning should be limited by decree, thus ensuring that other worthy, but less financially well-endowed aspirants, could stand for election?
Richard English
Posts: 8038 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UK
Can I just say that there are imperfections in our political system as well: two indistinguishable political parties run by men from wealthy families; no need to secure 50% of the vote to win; apathy from vast sections of the electorate; image being more important than policy; etc
quote:This "Southerner" doesn't like Edwards, nor does anyone I know! And we don't like Kerry...
I will "cherry pick" Bush any day...
Yes, I should have said Southern Democrats. Apparently there are a few in South Carolina who prefer Edwards.
Oh, and KHC, you are a lovely new contributor to our forum. However, you and I should not talk politics! [BTW, my husband and I never do either. If, for some reason we both forget and begin to discuss it, well, the sparks begin to fly!]
quote:Originally posted by Richard English: Are there grounds for suggesting that the amount that can be spent on compaigning should be limited by decree, thus ensuring that other worthy, but less financially well-endowed aspirants, could stand for election?
Yes, the issue of campaign reform is frequently discussed. The problem here, though, is an obvious one. The image of political candidates taking huge sums of money from corporations, special interest groups, etc is not all that different from the image of pigs at a trough and, unfortunately, it is the pigs themselves we must depend on to change the system.
Plato called democracy "The worst of all political systems" to which quote Churchill then famously added, "except for all the others" ________________________________________________
Would it be the worst if all those governed were educated and participatory?
I'm a South Carolina native, and a liberal, but do I trust an ambulance chaser lawyer? Hmmmmm...
Don't get me back on my soapbox! However, I do think lawyers get a very bad rap, and it isn't because Shufitz is a lawyer. Most of the lawyers I know are hard-working, brilliant, and work tirelessly for the minority or underserved.
There are very, very few ambulance chasers. And, after all, every occupation or profession has its low lifes or money grubbers. I agree that law is no exception to this (nor is nursing, medicine, engineers, mechanics, or even linguists!)
Richard, some may disagree strongly with your enlightened, balanced and nuanced portrayal of the US political system. Let's not risk converting our word board into a heated and divisive political argument.
Interestingly, I told my daughter about the Kerry comment. Now, my daughter is well-educated and quite bright (and, of course, I am not prejudiced! ), but the fact is, she misunderstands the definition of "cherry-pick," which makes me wonder if Kerry also does. She thought (and still thinks!) it comes from picking cherries from trees "You pick one here; you pick another there, etc." Strange.
I checked all Onelook definitions of it, just in case (like "peruse!") there is another definition of it. However, there isn't. Here was a common quote: "I suspect there's some cherry-picking going on, with lawyers only taking on the sort of cases that they're likely to win."
...sounds like a fine metaphor to me. Edwards won in his home state, but having won there is not representative of his chances nationally. If he couldn't pick that particular cherry he has no hope anywhere.
Maybe it would have been less awkward to have said "You can't cherry-pick your way to the Presidency" instead. A subtle difference, perhaps, but there nevertheless.
While we're on the subject, here's a little known bit of trivia for you.
Lincoln's Gettysburg Address is often cited as being one of the greatest works of political writing to come out of this country BUT when it is recited, it is almost always recited incorrectly or, to be more specific, differently from the way Lincoln himself presented it.
The line which includes the words "...of the people, by the people, and for the people..." would seem to make more sense if the stress fell on the three prepositions so this is how you always hear it presented. That certainly could be but testimony from a member of the audience on the day Lincoln gave this speech reported that it was rendered as "...of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, and for the PEOPLE..."
This person is, of course, long gone but his account was recorded in an interview some time in the early part of the last century.
[BTW, my husband and I never do either. If, for some reason we both forget and begin to discuss it, well, the sparks begin to fly!] 
