... the first thing, Judy, is how did the [Clinton-Obama] debate go? And I have to say, right at the outset, I disagree with David [Brooks], who has written rather glowingly and spoken glowingly about it.I thought it was offensive. And I say this as somebody who admires enormously both Charlie Gibson, who did a great job in the New Hampshire debate, and George Stephanopoulos, who's made the successful transition to journalism from politics.
But there was no more egregious example of sort of the macho-swagger, press-pass, take-no-prisoners prosecutor attitude than asking Senator Obama, "Why don't you wear a flag lapel pin?"
And I'd just give you two quick examples on this, because this is the kind of question -- the explanation to ask? "It's all over the Internet." I mean, so are theories about John Kennedy's assassination and the United States government blowing up the Twin Towers. That's no reason.
I mean, Jim Webb, Democratic senator from Virginia, who was a company commander in the -- Marine company commander in Vietnam and won the Navy Cross, the second-highest award the country can give, the Silver Star, two Bronze Stars, and two Purple Hearts, and opposed the war in Iraq, does not wear a lapel pin.
Dick Cheney, who during the 1960s sought and received five deferments to avoid military service and explained that he did so because he had other priorities than military service, supported the war in Iraq and wears a flag lapel pin.
So I guess the question then becomes: Why doesn't -- should it be that why doesn't Jim Webb do it? I mean, this really bothered me. Now...
Exactly right, thank you Mark Shields. Now, just one question: have you (or Jim Webb, for that matter) ever talked to, shaken hands with, or glanced in the general direction of anyone who might have, could have, or would have if they could have joined a "bad" group or church or whatever? C'mon, now, that's a "legitimate" question, at least according to George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson channeling Joseph McCarthy.
The right wing (and Clintonista) line of attack on America's hope for the future is to sully the candidate who is all about the future with the atavistic brickbats of the past.
The attack on Senator Obama as un-American, exotic, scary, fringe left, Muslim and what all garbage needs to be deflected by a running mate who is as red-blooded, apple pie, white bread and, yes, traditional, American as possible. And, ideally, that someone is so unassailably patriotic that he can savagely counterattack the forces of darkness who are taking this country down.
And good on Mark Shields, who remains one of the few straight talking and really sensible journalists out there. I just adore Mark Shields.
As for Obama, here's a hint as to how to deal with such questions in the future - RIDICULE THEM. Obama's problem is he treats each question seriously and tries to answer it honestly. At some point, however, ridicule for asking a stupid question is the absolute best defense. Heck, Reagan used ridicule quite effectively against very good questions. It's a sure way to derail an uncomfortable line of questions and to flip the tables on the interviewer, who is almost never prepared for that line of attack.
I've spent all my adult life involved with rhetoric, debate, and argumentation. All I can say is that with a little coaching Obama could crush all opposition and do it with a smile on his face and a laugh on his lips. He has great gifts, but he's way too serious, probably because he didn't grow up in the Catzmaw family of snarktastic smart-assery which passes for our family gatherings. Ridicule is a wonderful weapon, and something inherently understood by exactly the people Obama is trying to reach in Pennsylvania and Indiana. No one appreciates a good puncturing of someone's ego-filled balloon as well as a blue collar type from the Pennsylvania mountains.