It seems to be official now that there won’t be a debate in North Carolina and possibly not in Indiana. It seems that Obama’s organization, after his poor showing in Philadelphia last week don’t want the candidate to have to think on his feet any more.
The reasoning is stated to be that the candidate does better talking one on one with voters. Right. If you stick your big foot in your mouth then not so many people are aware of it. Also, it’s presumed to be easier to stick to well rehearsed talking points and hopefully with one on one it might be easier to waffle on difficult questions … if they’re asked.
So, how is Barack going to do as president when he has to meet with foreign leaders to discuss and negotiate delicate and important matters regarding foreign policy? Is he going to be able to stick to his prepared talking points? What if his speech writer forgets to put down, “Hi, my name is Barack.” Oops!
Does anyone get the feeling that Harvard Law School needs to ramp up its curriculum in the area of “Debate”? We’ve already get the impression that they may do okay in the area of “Declamation”. Barack can deliver a prepared speech. but, “Debate” … not so good.
Apparently, Barack doesn’t like to … or can’t … answer questions that aren’t on his talking points list. He calls it “sticking to the issues”. For some reason, he feels that the public wanting to know more about his life and associations isn’t an issue. Well, it is.
When a person says, “Believe what I say. Trust me.”, then the reasonable next question should be, “why?” The person should not only be prepared to answer the question, why, but also willing to answer the question. The answers should be able to withstand close scrutiny.
For many people, more often than not, Barack’s answers just don’t stand up to scrutiny.
Barack’s battle cry is “change”. Well, change to what? He talks about getting rid of the special interests in Washington. Well, whose special interests? Apparently, everyone’s except his. And, Barack definitely has his own special interests. Every endorsement he has received from every senator and representative in Washington is connected to special interests. To think that they aren’t going to cash in their chips if he gets elected is … being extremely naive and simple … to put it nicely.
Barack says, “I’m a constitutional lawyer. I know the constitution.” Well, “constitutional” lawyers are going to be arguing both sides of the second amendment case now before the Supreme Court. Barack’s wife seems to base her impression of who should have constitutional second amendment rights based more on Wyatt Earp movies than the Constitution. Apparently she feels that application of the law has more to do with the distance between houses and law enforcement based on miles rather than minutes. Apparently, her experiences have been so restricted to Chicago that she can’t comprehend that a 20 mile response trip in the country can be quicker than a 2 mile trip in the city. Somehow, according to her, and presumably him, people in areas with a less dense population should have more constitutional rights than people in cities. I always thought the Constitution applied equally to all Americans.
Why reference Michelle Obama rather than Barack? It’s simple. I’ve actually heard more of her impressions of the second amendment than I have of Barack’s. Frankly, he’s been elusive … other than, “Trust me. I know the Constitution.”
There’s a lot about Barack Obama that the American people simply don’t know.
Barack doesn’t like the exposure that debating creates. Barack fears the exposure potential of debating. What is he going to do when he has to debate John McCain? Is he going to continue to argue that a John McCain presidency is just a third George Bush term after saying that John McCain would make a better president that George Bush? I think he shot that argument in the foot himself.
He may be able to put off Hillary Clinton during the rest of the Democratic primary process. Whether or not this decision will hurt him is yet to be seen. Apparently his political machine has decided that the risk of debating is greater than not debating. They may be right … or not.
Shouldn’t a great orator also have the mental agility to be a great debater? Just as fundamental, if not more so, shouldn’t the president of the United States have that mental agility?