It seems odd to me to think that this is even a debate, and it seems odder that the press acts as though the only legitimate criteria for sound judgment is polls. Our free press (are they still free?), with a journalistic obligation to truth-telling, and with a unique worldview born of covering national and international figures and events over time, nevertheless fails to aggressively pursue a line of discourse about John McCain’s choice of vice presidential candidate that reflects a genuine concern for the respect of office? It seems unpatriotic and a waste of the 4th amendment for the press to only report on how “popular” such a wrongheaded move is.
Well. Here’s Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic on the same subject: http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2224950/33157262
I have been watching the unfoldment of John McCain’s Vice-Presidential choice with a great deal of dismay. For one thing, many in the liberal camp began immediately to dismiss the choice as foolish. The party was on, and I was alarmed at the arrogance, and lack of awareness of the feelings on the other side of the debate.. Then there was the sexism. Sure its easy to cry sexism when someone else is doing it, but how about when it rears its ugly head on your own side? Terms like G/VPILF were offensive – and were introduced by the liberal camp. Even today I saw a headline calling Sarah Palin’s vetting process a casting couch. Classy, huh?
But the biggest sense of dread I felt has finally crystalized into something I’m ready to write about…and that is the clear and obvious difference between McCain’s and Obama’s vetting process. On the one hand, you have a careful, thorough process, on which Obama was involved with, and one which set clear standards intended to ensure good governance. That process yielded Joe Biden. On the other you have a minimum amount of vetting done to justify the term, a candidate who seems imposed upon by outside forces in the selection process, and seemingly no thought given to governance issues – only electoral ones. The high energy invested in protecting this choice reeks of the same cronyism apparatus that has plagued the Bush presidency, at the expense of lives (see: Katrina), and stubborn defense of bad judgement (see: Iraq II).
Is it too much to hope that we would elect a man who demonstrates thoughtfulness instead of rashness, soberness instead of bluster, and humility in service instead of selfish ambition?
Last night I was hearing everyone talk about how Obama made a mistake – that McCain “himself” never played the race card, even if some fringe periphery groups might have. I thought that argument was sound, and then I saw this, from 2 months ago:
Now we know just who played the race card, and what was being talked about when Obama said “he doesn’t look like the other people on the currency.”
In looking at McCain’s web site I’m just stunned at how much of a disrespectful campaign McCain is running. Whereas Obama’s video section is LOADED with Obama making speeches, talking about issues, connecting with people, OR, about people connecting with people, creating a movement for change. McCain’s site? Childishly making fun of Barack. I had believed, until today, that McCain was running a parallel campaign as Obama’s and that it was McCain’s surrogates and the outside groups (with or without permission from McCain) who were being disrespectful. I now know differently. Nothing could have sold me harder against McCain that this.
Obama has to hit, and hit hard. The McCain campaign has determined that even flat out lies gotten out to the media will permeate the public consciousness. Constant rebuttal, unless it has more force than the original, will only become background noise. Now we know how McCain plans to win. Will Obama let him steal an election this way? Because I count this as more of a steal than a supreme court judgment. Running a campaign entirely on the creation of false impressions is a cheat to the American people, and I think we deserve better.
Above is video of Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC complaining bitterly about lack of press access in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wish I had a longer clip that had Andrea Mitchell responding to the idea of the military being too positive to the Obama campaign. The idea is laughable on its face. General Petraus has no particular reason to be overly friendly to Obama, as he and Obama clash on opinions about what to do in Iraq (in today’s news conference, Sen. Obama asserts that this clash is appropriate – that the generals on the ground have a single mission while the president, or any candidates for that office, have to think about the country as a whole, and not just one aspect of the country’s strategic objectives). My point is – it seems highly likely that McCain is the favorite of the military, NOT Obama – and if the press was shooed away from the goings on in Iraq and Afghanistan it was either for their protection, or because the candidate wanted an opportunity to do as close to a genuine assessment as he could – which likely necessitated being away from press view.
