A lot has been said about the George Stephanopoulos/Charlie Gibson insult to journalism a week or so ago. Barack Obama supporters decry it as non-substantive drivel of topics not remotely of interest to the American voter. Hillary Clinton supporters loved that the "media darling" was taken down a peg or two and muddied in the process.
Truth is, both sides are correct and, moreso, have merit.
If the questions looked like they'd been plucked from a deck of Trivial Pursuit cards, it's because in their formation and intellectual curiousity they were the equivalent. Make no mistake: there were real questions embedded in the ones posed by these allegedly seasoned journalists who seemed more like overly-eager cub reporters getting their first shot at the bigs. "Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?" "About six in 10 voters that we talk to say they don't believe you're honest and trustworthy ... A lot them raised this honesty issue and your comments about being under sniper fire in Bosnia." "I want to do one more question, which goes to the basic issue of electability. And it is a question raised by a voter in Latrobe, Pennsylvania, a woman by the name of Nash McCabe."
Rather than asking Obama to do a Vulcan mind meld into Rev. Wright's brain or asking Clinton to do a tap dance all over the Bosnia issue, the grown-up questions hidden within might be:
"Senator Obama, the Rev. Wright has been caught on the record spewing what the media has labelled anti-American speech. You have decried this form of rhetoric and we would like to know how this episode impacts your view of faith-based initiatives sanctioned by the government. How does the government ferret out activist preachers or should it even be involved in such religious outreach endeavors in the first place?"
"Senator Clinton, you have said in past that you 'misspoke' when you told the story of sniper fire in Bosnia and have asked for the American public's forgiveness and tolerance. How will this impact your decisions as Chief Law Enforcer and your Justice Department when CEOs and Cabinet members are found 'misspeaking' or outright lying in testimony to Congress or in the public domain on matters of public accountability and fiduciary interests?"
"Senator Obama, you just heard the video question from Nash McCabe. This is a two-part question: First, does your refusal to wear the symbolic lapel flag pin in any way reflect your views on the First Amendment and the issue of flag burning and, if so, what impact, if any, would this have on potential selection of Supreme Court nominees? Second, we have done some research on the woman who just asked that question and (fill in her life story). Do you believe her story confirms your initial assessment of 'bitter' voters in this and similar regions or do you maintain that you simply 'misspoke'?"
Senator Clinton, you have pointed to Barack Obama's association with William Ayers on the Woods Foundation as a questionable use of judgment. This was a board which Sen. Obama joined and had no influence on the selection of its members. You, Sen. Clinton, have taken credit for the accomplishments of your husband's administration and count those years on your resume. On the highest 'board of directors' in the nation, your husband's administration had its HUD Secretary Cisneros convicted of lying to the FBI, and Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy indicted on 39 charges. How does this speak to your judgment as a candidate who includes those years and those selections of Cabinet positions, as part of your resume?"
And that's just the first 52 minutes. The secret unforced error of the night came when the debate turned to foreign affairs, more specifically, matters pertaining to the Middle East. Here the giggly school boys missed the most salient point - and perhaps the scoop of their lives - of the night's events.
Notwithstanding yet
another blatant disregard of yet
another National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), the giddy pair snickered their way past the facts to ask how each candidate might respond to an attack on Israel by Iran. (Forget that:
Iran is a signator of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), not Israel; Iran has no nuclear weapons, Israel does; our intelligence says Iran - an NPT signatory - doesn't even have the wherewithall to refine the materials required for such an attack, Israel does.) Giggling on, however, the boys turn to Obama, who promises "appropriate action." Then they turn tittering to Clinton, so pleased are they with their schoolyard taunts of the Democratic contenders, that they miss the nugget of the evening.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Clinton, would you?
CLINTON: Well, in fact, George, I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region.
Had the moderators not been so busy mentally high-fiving the other and gleefully patting themselves on the back for their "gotcha" success, they might have heard the ringing echo of candidate George W. Bush's still small voice in one of the answers.
President-elect Bush, 2000: "(The Russians have) raised great objections about missile defense, but I explained to them that I understand that the technology and the will, for that matter, of some in Congress will really mean that initially we will be deploying systems that will prevent the accidental launch of the ones and twos, with the ability for some nation like Iran to eventually say to us, 'And we've got one aimed at Israel. And what are you going to do about it? ...' "
The Foreign Policy Association noted:
Phrases like “trigger massive retaliation” — usually meant to imply the use of nuclear weapons — should probably not be used in campaign debates at all. But to use them at the same time that one is promising — irrespective of military advice — to begin a withdrawal of military forces from Iraq within 60 days of taking office, sends a mixed signal to the region that we would do well to avoid.
Huffington Post says:
Secondly, Iran has signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Under this treaty, it has the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. So far, that's what Iran has been doing. If Iran's exercise of its rights to enrich uranium is unacceptable to the U.S., why did it sit aside and allow Iran to become an NPT member in the first place? It's like giving someone a driver's license and then protest if she drives, offer to give them a ride instead and complain if she insists on driving herself. The U.S. cannot allow countries to become members of NPT and then oppose their exercise of their rights under the NPT. So then what is the point?
Hillary Clinton's comment also highlights another flaw in the continuous international nuclear non-dialogue. While the intelligence on Iran's nuclear program is inconclusive, intelligence on Israel's possession of at least 300 nuclear weapons is conclusive. There is a wealth of information on the topic, the stream of which started in 1986 when Mordechai Vanunu, an Israeli nuclear technician revealed the details of Israel's nuclear program to the British press. Hillary Clinton and neo-conservatives warn of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. The arms race has already started, and Israel was the country that started it.
But perhaps the most tragic part of all of this is that Israel isn't even a member of NPT. Yes, the United States has allowed one country that isn't a member of NPT to have nuclear weapons and simultaneously wants to stop a NPT member from exercising its legitimate right to enrich uranium, which for all we know is for peaceful purposes. "Hypocrisy" is the word.
Three walks and an unforced error on first? To me this lines up one of the best competitive performances in the sport of political debates this campaign season. It's one of those things only coaches and play-by-play commentators with the hindsight of slow-motion play review and the X's and O's on the whiteboard appreciate, but the truth remains this was a good even if the refs missed the play.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
