Finally, A Debate of Substance

The outcry from the media about the "irrelevance" of George Stephanoupolous and Charlie Gibson's questions in last Wednesday's debate was striking. I have lived in America for 25 years and have never heard other journalists openly criticize their colleagues in this way. I felt that the questions were terribly relevant because "everyone" had been talking about Reverend Wright for weeks, despite Obama's "speech" and the comments surfaced that showed him in a different light than what he had been presenting to the American people. Also, a day before the debate, a veteran gave him a flag pin during a campaign stop, which he gladly pinned on his lapel to secure that man's vote, then he showed up at the debate without said pin. In addition to that, he had previously said he would not wear a flag pin. It seemed to me that there were several contradictions at play, and the moderators would have been irresponsible if they had not asked those questions. Others have said said, well, it took 45 minutes to get to the substance of the issues. However, we have heard both candidates positions on the issues, and the media keeps telling us that there is no difference between them on the issues (I disagree), so I think their characters are fair game, particularly when Obama has been saying Hillary Clinton is untrustworthy and dishonest. If it then comes to light that Obama is not who he claims to be in public, and clearly he is not, it is very relevant.

The backlash from Obama supporters in the media and the public at large, even a rapper of all people, is totally ridiculous and inappropriate. If Obama had an issue with the questions, why didn't he push back against it like Hillary Clinton did in a previous debate? Instead he got angry, because he fumbled his answers because he was not being transparent. I felt that the debate was the first time Obama was given tough questions to get to the real individual running for the presidency. Obama has been hiding behind the big crowds at his rallies, given low ball questions at the previous debates, and was "allowed" to "parrot" Hillary Clinton's answers in those debates. I think the fact that he did not anticipate the questions or had prepared answers showed real weakness and will be troubling for Superdelegates. If he complains now about questions in a debate, how in the world is he going to withstand the Republican attacks? I don't think Obama can withstand tough political punches like Hillary Clinton. He has a glass chin (to use a boxing analogy), and will suffer a TKO if he becomes the nominee. When he says Hillary Clinton was whining in previous debates, does he and his campaign stop to think that maybe people, especially men, expect women to "whine" but men do, they are perceived as weak?