Debates are near-pointless style competitions. The goal is not to really resonate, but to engage in damage control in the face of potentially tough and unexpected questions. If the limits of the medium were not such a concern, candidates could be given more time to ruminate on the loaded questions being thrown at them and thus generate meaningful responses. Without that kind of time, answers given tend toward the repetitive sound bite: just enough to keep the candidate afloat, but not enough to resonate with anybody.
Post-debate interviews and analysis should create an opportunity to rectify the inadequacy of the debates by giving candidates a second crack at the questions; instead, however, the majority of post-debate coverage centers on those particularly newsworthy gaffes, as well as pointless and subjective "Who won?" commentary. This is a great shame. So, as pure fantasy, I've decided to come up with responses to questions asked during the debate that I believe Senator Obama would at the very least agree with, if not have given himself.
For the time being, I'll just respond to the first one. Brian Williams asked a few of the candidates about a letter to USA Today criticizing Harry Reid for calling the war in Iraq "lost", saying that if George Patton were alive today, he would "wipe his boots" with Harry Reid. Responses to the question were, for the reasons cited above, unfulfilling. Given time to think about it, here is my response:
"First of all, that is an unfair historical comparison. George Patton was a great general, part of a long tradition of excellence that continues today in our armed forces. However, if he were alive today and we could ask him how to solve the situation in Iraq, he would probably say, 'Why are you asking me? I'm just a soldier.' And that's what our troops are saying right now about this conflict. George Patton was part of a great effort to win the war against Nazi Germany, just as our troops fought a brave and valiant effort to overthrow Saddam Hussein. That's what our troops do. But when it comes to winning the peace, that's a diplomatic and political effort. That's where the president needs to step up and heal divides and rebuild nations. The troops are important in keeping the peace, but ultimately it's not their job. The President of the United States has failed at winning the peace in that he's put the whole burden on the troops to do it for him, and hasn't used the political and diplomatic tools at his disposal. Now it's a lost cause, and that's not the troops' fault, it's our president's fault, and we need to get our troops out of there."
There we go. 60 seconds worth of response. If only it were that easy, standing at that podium, faced with those green and red lights ticking away your time to justify yourself to the nation.
Oh, if only...
when obama says americans are looking for "a different kind of politics", that's something that resonates with me.
I've volunteered with several campaigns since I was in high school, all democrats, out of the belief that the democrats are better than the republicans. I used to consider myself an out-and-out democrat, but now I'm not so sure. the title "indedpendant" is alluring, but I suppose I still technically support the democratic party's policies.
so why am I constantly considering abandoning my alliance to the party? it's because of the beltway establishment. they seem to take my support of certain policies for granted and keep offering politicians who do nothing more than enforce those policies. problems immediately arise when the issues at hand transcend mere partisan litmus tests, such as the post-9/11 votes on the patriot act, the iraq war, etc.
suddenly, candidates were confronted with serious issues about their electability. sure, you can defend a woman's right to choose because it will help guarantee a certain amount of votes in your blue state, but what about a potential terrorist's right to a fair trial? what will that do to your voter tallies, blinded by such headlight issues, most of the democratic party became mere political wallflowers, standing by while chicken hawks danced the night away to the tune of "the war on terror".
for me, the change of heart crescendoed in 2003 when I was volunteering for some state elections in new jersey. I was in a car with a few other volunteers and we discussed who would be the best presidential candidate to send forward in 2004. the two other volunteers both seemed to support john kerry, although I wasn't sure why. I was tentatively supporting howard dean (with my #1 dream pick being al sharpton), but I didn't dare speak. they seemed to possess much more authority than I did. they knew "the realities". kerry could pick up such-and-such percentage of the so-and-so vote, they said. kerry would be reliable in these-and-those areas. howard dean, on the other hand, was a menace.
I can understand their mentality. they're like those guys who decide the odds on certain teams to win the NCAA championships. they review all the stats and make the most bankable decisions, but fail to take into account the gutsy inspiration of the underdogs. it's true that most years will see a tried-and-true competitor take the championship, but the establishment has always been prone to losing its mojo.
I guess I don't blame them. inspired candidates can be few and far between, and even then rarely bankable. but the idea that the rest of us are supposed to abandon our gut instincts and just vote for hillary makes me weep for the future of the party. we need a candidate who can adapt to today's rapidly changing political climate, not just wait for the latest focus group numbers to come in so a centrist position can be triangulated and tested by well-paid hacks who wouldn't know the iraq war from a thumb up their ass. we need a candidate who can anticipate the attack and rise above it, not just hopelessly stay on message when the media outlets are blaring the latest talking point at full volume.
so maybe some other year we can vote for the hillary du jour. maybe there will come a day when reality will fall away, leaving only a nice, comfortable world of abstract problems requiring bullet-point solutions. but today's issues are organic in their complexity. they stem from fundamentally unsolveable problems and manifest themselves in more and different ways than can be counted. we can't elect leaders who will go around pretending to solve them as a cynical ploy to either get re-elected or pass those problems on to the next guy (as our current president is trying to do). we must elect someone who has the courage to take these issues head-on, based on their own convictions and using the best advice available.
so a lot of us have let our usual guard down and figured on barack obama being our saviour in that respect. my gut tells me he'll do everything we need him to do, which is a lot more than hillary could muster. good senator, but so is kerry, and god what a horrible presidential candidate that guy was. I predict that for all the warming up, hillary clinton could be even worse than kerry as a candidate. and that is something we simply cannot afford. either obama or edwards, preferably a double bill. that would knock giuliani out of his 2ce-divorced socks.
