Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Sandbacked
There's a thoughtful and, I think, accurate piece by Joan Walsh at Salon on what was essentially a sandbagging endured by Obama at Rick Warren's Saddleback interview. I've been puzzling over it for two days because Warren seemed so rational and calm and his stated goal of respectful disagreement is such a good one: no vitriol, no spewing hatred, just listen and take it from there.
What I hadn't been able to process or understand was what felt like a drubbing. The questions were thoughtful but many were religious with a tone along the lines of when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife in that you kind of knew that if Obama didn't answer the way they wanted then he was going to be labeled problematic. Indeed, Warren asked a question that Obama answered by saying he believes women do have the right to choose abortion - although he also stated clearly that he doesn't not mean to say he thinks it's a good idea - and he also said he does not support late term abortion (contrary to what his attackers say). But McCain jumped right on the Christian-right lap with that one by saying sonorously that "life begins at conception" and getting a cheer for his efforts. However, McCain has voted for and vocally supports stem cell research yet Warren never asked about that.
And speaking of Warren, his supposedly haloed good guy self should be taking a hit among his followers but for some reason it's not. He said clearly that both candidates would be asked the same questions and that neither would hear the other's answers until after the interviews were over. Yet even a casual listen to the questions reveals that they were not asked identical questions. Furthermore McCain seemed to know the questions because he didn't pause to think or consider his answers but had obviously prepared comebacks for everything. A couple of days ago, optimist that I am, I interpreted that as being because the questions were mostly to be expected, but Walsh notes that McCain was not in the building when the Obama interview began and therefore Warren's guaranteed and much ballyooed "cone of silence" could not have been effectuated. What does that mean for all the pontificating about honesty and integrity?
In an interview about the interviews, afterwards, Warren was asked what he thought about Obama's and McCain's different views about abortion and how he thought their views would impact the choices of evangelicals in November. First he said that "I would not predict how evangelicals are going to vote. I will tell you they're not monolith. That's a big myth. They're going to make up their minds based on the hierarchy of their values." Okay, good.
Then he said, "many evangelicals, of course, ... believe that life begins at conception [and] if they think that life begins at conception, then that means that there are 40 million Americans who are not here [because they were aborted] that could have voted. They would call that a holocaust and for them it would like if I'm Jewish and a Holocaust denier is running for office. I don't care how right he is on everything else, it's a deal breaker for me. I'm not going to vote for a Holocaust denier..."
What astonishingly twisted and maze-like reasoning is that? And, aside from the ghastly mixing and muddled matching of idea, isn't it incendiary and appalling? How, exactly, does this kind of language do anything other than ignite and fan flames of anger and mistrust? And, hey, what happened to "no vitriol" and "listen and disagree with respect"?
When Warren asked whether they thought evil existed, I was excited. It's a superb question and discussing evil could have led to a discussion of child-rearing, poverty, urban problems, race relations and a host of other important issues. Obama addressed the question in a thoughtful answer without flinging policy or pre-canned paragraphs at us. McCain didn't answer at all, just jumped right on the familiar bandwagon, frowned and asserted he'd annihalate Osama bin Laden. I'd like not to think he said "Osama bin Laden" so alarmists could connect the similarity to Obama's name. But I have to think that he chose not to (or couldn't) answer the philosophical question in a philosophical way.
We have a wonderful and forceful and good country in many ways but we also have many difficult problems in America. To focus on only one is to shortchange the electorate and to diminish one's chances of having thoughtful leadership.
What I hadn't been able to process or understand was what felt like a drubbing. The questions were thoughtful but many were religious with a tone along the lines of when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife in that you kind of knew that if Obama didn't answer the way they wanted then he was going to be labeled problematic. Indeed, Warren asked a question that Obama answered by saying he believes women do have the right to choose abortion - although he also stated clearly that he doesn't not mean to say he thinks it's a good idea - and he also said he does not support late term abortion (contrary to what his attackers say). But McCain jumped right on the Christian-right lap with that one by saying sonorously that "life begins at conception" and getting a cheer for his efforts. However, McCain has voted for and vocally supports stem cell research yet Warren never asked about that.
And speaking of Warren, his supposedly haloed good guy self should be taking a hit among his followers but for some reason it's not. He said clearly that both candidates would be asked the same questions and that neither would hear the other's answers until after the interviews were over. Yet even a casual listen to the questions reveals that they were not asked identical questions. Furthermore McCain seemed to know the questions because he didn't pause to think or consider his answers but had obviously prepared comebacks for everything. A couple of days ago, optimist that I am, I interpreted that as being because the questions were mostly to be expected, but Walsh notes that McCain was not in the building when the Obama interview began and therefore Warren's guaranteed and much ballyooed "cone of silence" could not have been effectuated. What does that mean for all the pontificating about honesty and integrity?
In an interview about the interviews, afterwards, Warren was asked what he thought about Obama's and McCain's different views about abortion and how he thought their views would impact the choices of evangelicals in November. First he said that "I would not predict how evangelicals are going to vote. I will tell you they're not monolith. That's a big myth. They're going to make up their minds based on the hierarchy of their values." Okay, good.
Then he said, "many evangelicals, of course, ... believe that life begins at conception [and] if they think that life begins at conception, then that means that there are 40 million Americans who are not here [because they were aborted] that could have voted. They would call that a holocaust and for them it would like if I'm Jewish and a Holocaust denier is running for office. I don't care how right he is on everything else, it's a deal breaker for me. I'm not going to vote for a Holocaust denier..."
What astonishingly twisted and maze-like reasoning is that? And, aside from the ghastly mixing and muddled matching of idea, isn't it incendiary and appalling? How, exactly, does this kind of language do anything other than ignite and fan flames of anger and mistrust? And, hey, what happened to "no vitriol" and "listen and disagree with respect"?
When Warren asked whether they thought evil existed, I was excited. It's a superb question and discussing evil could have led to a discussion of child-rearing, poverty, urban problems, race relations and a host of other important issues. Obama addressed the question in a thoughtful answer without flinging policy or pre-canned paragraphs at us. McCain didn't answer at all, just jumped right on the familiar bandwagon, frowned and asserted he'd annihalate Osama bin Laden. I'd like not to think he said "Osama bin Laden" so alarmists could connect the similarity to Obama's name. But I have to think that he chose not to (or couldn't) answer the philosophical question in a philosophical way.
We have a wonderful and forceful and good country in many ways but we also have many difficult problems in America. To focus on only one is to shortchange the electorate and to diminish one's chances of having thoughtful leadership.
Labels: 2008 election
Post a Comment