Several mainstream media sources (notably a columnist at the Washington Post) are highly critical this morning of what they regard as a game of gotcha by ABC debate moderators Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos.(The WaPo column goes so far as to call the debate moderators’ performances “shoddy, despicable”—although we are not sure why a “style columnist” is critiquing a political debate---unless someone wore the wrong pocket hanky.)
The notable exception was David Brooks, an op-ed columnist for The New York Times, who disagreed, writing that the questions were excellent. “The journalist’s job is to make politicians uncomfortable, to explore evasions, contradictions and vulnerabilities. Almost every question tonight did that.”
As we see it, this is simply the first debate in which the Democratic contender from Chicago was asked tough questions and it’s about time. In addition, we saw something else last night—Obama was not up to the task of answering them.
Obama seemed genuinely surprised--even annoyed--to be asked about his pastor-friend-mentor the reverend Wright and was clearly unprepared to respond to a question about his association with former Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers. (He ducked the question by claiming, falsely, that President Clinton "pardoned" two members of the same 60's terror group to which Ayer's belonged.) He seemed shaky and unsure of himself, he used catchphrases like “the old politics” to try to change the subject and deflect questions, and turned in his worst debate performance yet.
To our eye, as soon as Obama faces tough probing questions about difficult subjects, his inexperience in campaigning at the national level starts to show. And it is not at all reassuring.
Hillary Clinton remained poised throughout, and did her self no harm. In fact, we saw rare candor from the former first lady when she as much as admitted that she embellished the Bosnia story and apologized for it.
We also saw future trouble ahead in the general election for Obama should the super-delegates decide that he should be the nominee.
The candidate from Illinois seemed unsure of his own economic and tax positions and had and simply had no answer to a question concerning whether lowering the capital gains tax would increase tax revenue in the long run.
Even more concerning, Obama denied being present in church for any of the Reverend Wright sermons featured on You Tube—including the Wright sermon five days after 9/11 when Obama’s pastor and friend blamed the casualties on America.
Here is the trap that Obama set for himself.
We all know where we were on 9/11. And unless Barack Obama was in another state or country and unable to rejoin his family in Chicago by the following Sunday, it is inconceivable that if Obama is the man faith he professes to be, that he would not have taken his family to church at that time of national sorrow and crisis.
Certainly Obama did not travel away from Chicago after 9/11 and before the next Sunday sermon—the airlines were grounded. (We know, we were stuck in a London hotel room, unable to return home, and could only watch those plains fly again and again into the towers on CNN, listen to the estimates of (at the time) 10,000 dead—including hundreds of firefighters--and grieve for our nation. Nor were we in the mood to hear ANYONE tell us that the attacks were America's fault.)
In our view, not only were these tough questions to the candidates justified, they did not go far enough. For instance, Obama was not asked where he was on 9/11, and if in Chicago why he did not attend church.
At some point, the man who would lead the United States is going to be required to answer that question and scores more like it. And until we are confident that he will not go all wobbly with, lets face it, several debate questions that Obama clearly should have anticipated, with direct, honest, plausible answers, he has no business being the nominee of our party.
No comments:
Post a Comment