First, the curmudgeonly Jack Cafferty:
"Throughout the evening, McCain chose to recite portions of his stump speech as answers to the questions he was being asked. Why? He has lived 71 years. Surely he has some thoughts on what it all means that go beyond canned answers culled from the same speech he delivers every day. ...
"One after another, McCain's answers were shallow, simplistic, and trite. He showed the same intellectual curiosity that George Bush has -- virtually none."
Here's the take from a columnist from the conservative Boston Herald:"Leaders don’t pass tough questions to the next 'pay grade.' They don’t need five minutes to answer yes-or-no questions about the surge or Russia’s invasion of a democratic neighbor."
Cafferty, essentially sides with Obama: a forum like Saddleback is a place for contemplation and intellect. Over at the Boston Herald, Michael Graham sides with McCain: Saddleback is an opportunity to communicate one's message to voters.
Of course, neither portrayed it this way. Both went on the attack. Cafferty insulted McCain's intelligence. Graham is, essentially, emasculating Obama.
I find this to be a silly subject to comment on, perhaps going with the so-called "silly season" that is the pre-Labor Day, non-convention campaign. McCain and Obama adopted different strategies. In presenting his contemplative side, Obama is trying to draw a contrast with George Bush. There's simply no way that President Bush would ever say something like, "that question is above my pay grade."
McCain, on the other hand, is trying to cultivate his "straight-talking" persona by getting right to the point. So he used his prepared talking points at a debate. And he looked pretty good for it, I thought; he seemed earnest and genuine.
Cafferty is reaching, I think. I don't doubt that Obama is smarter than McCain, but to think that McCain is not smart enough to be president is awfully presumptuous, no?
If there's an issue with McCain's intelligence, I think that it should be tied to his age. It's really quite difficult to discern whether or not a presidential candidate's intelligence or brain function is slipping because of old age, but I can accept the argument that McCain might be too old to be president. Cafferty's simply arguing that, because McCain hasn't written anything deep and philosophical, he's not qualified to be president. Obama, for all of his perceived intellect as a top notch professor, has never published anything except a pair of autobiographies. It's possible that McCain was too busy representing his constituents as a senator to sit down and write a long tome on his beliefs about the role of the welfare state.
Really, though, I find Graham's comments downright offensive. Obama answered a question honestly. He admitted that he cannot know when a baby gets "human rights," because he cannot pinpoint when life begins. He's a constitutional law scholar, not a scientist or theologian. I found it refreshing to hear this from a politician.
Obama seemed out of practice. He became much better in the lousy excuses for debates that punctuated the primary season, but he stammered a bit more than you'd hope at Saddleback, if you're an Obama supporter. Obama needs to be able to speak extemporaneously, but intelligently at the same time. The "ums" and "uhs" detract from that.
But Graham belittles contemplation. You see, a "leader" just knows. He rules from the heart, and his gut, which is usually right. He immediately solves all crises by surging into danger, carrying his sword into battle with guns blazing (combining metaphors here, but the point holds). God forbid that someone stops to think about the question or the problem at hand. It was almost like an absurd discussion of "masculinity," which seemed to be the subtext to the piece.
There is nothing wrong with examining all possibilities, admitting one's limitations, even for an American president. If we stopped treating presidents as gods, we might see more effective government. (It's tough, of course, for Obama to make this argument, as he has spent a great deal of his campaign wrapped up in his own hype.)
Anyway, failures of the pundits, yet again. Contemplation is no sin. Neither, for that matter, is choice of style.
--------------
One brief addendum: as far as negative campaigning goes, I feel like the McCain camp has veered between what would be "valid" and what's not valid. I wanted to point out something that I found valid. This is McCain clarifying his critique of Obama. If the McCain camp stays on this line, I find it tough to criticize.
"Yesterday, Senator Obama got a little testy on this issue. He said that I am questioning his patriotism. Let me be clear: I am not questioning his patriotism; I am questioning his judgment. Senator Obama has made it clear that he values withdrawal from Iraq above victory in Iraq, even today with victory in sight. Over and over again, he has advocated unconditional withdrawal, regardless of the facts on the ground. And he voted against funding for troops in combat, after saying it would be wrong to do so. He has made these decisions not because he doesn't love America, but because he doesn't seem to understand the consequences of an American defeat in Iraq, how it would risk a wider war and threaten the security of American families. I am going to end this war, but when I bring our troops home, they will come home with honor and victory, leaving Iraq secured as a democratic ally in the Arab heartland."
Some of the other things, I find much less valid. I think the celebrity thing is a bit beneath the kind of campaign McCain claimed to want to run.
No comments:
Post a Comment