A Chequer-Board of Nights and Days

Apparently, there are a lot of people who are seriously upset over the debate between the Democratic candidates last night. Specifically, they are upset at the moderating of Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos.

I don't know if I would give the debate the grade that David Brooks has given it, but as I heard Chuck Todd mention on the television this afternoon, when you have two candidates between whom there are not significant policy differences, there will be more of an emphasis on personal issues. I thought some issues were sillier than others but questions concerning Barack Obama's views of Americans in rural areas and whether they "cling" to guns and religion were entirely legitimate. We want to know how a potential President views the country and Obama's comments raise the issue of how he perceives America. No, this particular issue has nothing to do with how patriotic Obama is, but it does have to do with how correctly he gets the mood of the country. We Americans are healthily obsessed with that sort of thing; there is a reason why Tocqueville and his most famous writing is such a classic of American historical literature. The examination of American moods, mores and norms--no matter how minute--is a time-honored practice and one that we Americans involve ourselves in to a tremendous degree. It should surprise Obama not a whit that his comment about rural Americans awakened our inner Tocquevilles and caused us to debate the import of what he said. Far from being a trivial issue, this matter is quite important indeed.

So is the issue of how well-connected Obama is to Bill Ayers, the onetime Weather Underground terrorist. To be completely fair, Obama was quite right to point out that if he deserves to be questioned on this issue, then the Clintons deserve questioning as well, given the pardon of onetime Weather Underground terrorists by former President Clinton. But again, this brings up what Machiavelli said about rulers and the old Florentine's words deserve to be quoted again:

The first opinion which one forms of a prince, and of his understanding, is by observing the men he has around him; and when they are capable and faithful he may always be considered wise, because he has known how to recognize the capable and to keep them faithful. But when they are otherwise one cannot form a good opinion of him, for the prime error which he made was in choosing them.

Finally, there is the issue of what Hillary Clinton said concerning her trip to Tuzla. I know that there has been a lot of commentary concerning this issue but I personally can't wrap my brain around the excuse that Hillary Clinton imagined being fired upon because she was sleep-deprived. Especially given the fact that she wrote about the visit in her memoirs and (correctly) did not mention coming under sniper fire. I am sleep-deprived too; it doesn't cause me to think that assassins are out to get me. And given that some of the comments concerning the Tuzla visit occurred at around 9:00 in the morning, one has to wonder just how alert Hillary Clinton would be in fielding the 3 am phone calls she assures us she is capable of taking. Either the would-be President Clinton II needs her rest more than she needs the Presidency, or she was making stuff up. In any event, this is not good for her candidacy and given the larger issues this comical episode raises--and those issues are indeed raised--it was entirely right and proper for them to be brought up.

Look, I don't think that this was the Lincoln-Douglas debates. It could have been better. But it was not the forensic train wreck that some are making it out to be. The Obama people ado not appear to have liked how the debate went. This is no surprise; Obama did poorly in last night's debate. At the same time, they should not be surprised that Obama was a target of a lot of the questions last night. This is what comes with being the front runner, after all.