Political Schadenfreude

NVB has a post with the video clip of Tim Russert and says to the SC uncommitted Super delegates that 'the time is now.' It sparked interesting comments that have become between most of us, respectful debate. I'll reprint the comment that started the debate followed by my first response (rather knee jerk I admit) and then my final rebuttal. I believe if you pay attention to the tone and tenor of the Question, followed by the responses one can see the diametrically opposed points of view when it comes to American Politics.

First from commenter Peddler:

Some things to consider. This is Hillary’s last chance at the White House. Some may say she can wait but if Obama is elected, then she waits eight years, McCain four years. I don’t believe she is willing to do that and in four or eight years, her relevance will be diminished too much for her to be a consideration.

Another reason I personally want her to stay in the race until the end is because of the blank slate known as Barack Obama. When he exploded on the national scene in 2004, we knew nothing about him. When he declared his candidacy for the presidency, we still knew nothing about him. The same cannot be said for Clinton and McCain. We know all about those two and unless there is something buried deep in their past that could be devastating, both are known entities. Obama is a different story. The press has laid off him and won’t ask the really tough questions and do their due diligence and dig into his background the way they have done other candidates. Sean Hannity finding the comments by Wright does not count as an actual reporter doing their job.

As long as the race continues, Obama will be vetted as much as possible and we should have a good or reasonable understanding of his strengths and his weak points. That is not unreasonable expectation especially if the man could be the next president of this country.

So far, he has only been tested at a local level in Chicago and for a very short time in the senate. I don’t know enough about him to even make an informed decision one way or the other. The man behind the curtain needs to be revealed once and for all and then let the voters decide if he is the right person to occupy the White House.

So. let the process continue until an actual count decides one way or the other. If the
supers want to declare before the convention, then they should be polled now by the DNC. Let the results determine who will be the candidate. Until that day comes, anything is possible and the unexpected can happen. There may be one more issue that might surface that could destroy Obama and provide the supers justification to go with Hillary.

The Republicans had one of the weakest field of candidates this time I can remember except for the Bob Dole disaster. The choice of John McCain did not and still does not sit well with many Republicans and conservatives but who was out there that could have been a solid alternative? So, with that in mind, why is John McCain either leading, holding his own, or trailing by one or two points against either candidate at this time?

There is still something unsettled here and I believe it is Obama’s unknowns. The primary process should take care of it.

My initial response: “So far, he has only been tested at a local level in Chicago and for a very short time in the senate. I don’t know enough about him to even make an informed decision one way or the other. The man behind the curtain needs to be revealed once and for all and then let the voters decide if he is the right person to occupy the White House.”

Why is it the only way to know a candidate is to see them as flawed. My question to all those who worry about an “October surprise” is what if there isn’t one, what if the Rev. Wright and Tony Rezko are it? Is it so incomprehensible to believe that perhaps a morally upstanding person would run for the President? Must they all be as crooked as a Clinton or Nixon?

Does anyone see the irony in saying a candidate with the most baggage, which is essentially the argument here, is the most qualified. That the only way to know a candidate is to tear them a part until you find their deepest darkest secret as important or as trivial as it may be and exploit it? Sounds like you’re inferring that Americans are modern day citizens of Sodom. “Bring [him] out unto us, that we may know [him].” (Gen 19:5 KJV)

The retort from Peddler:

I think your religious training has gotten to you MM. My point in case you missed it is that “IF” there is anything that we need to know, now is the time, not later. And, no, it is not incomprehensible to believe a morally upstanding person could or would run for president. Like you, I don’t want anymore Clintons or Nixons occupying the White House either. Enough is enough. We have had enough liars and damned liars occupying the White House who have been very successful pulling the “wool” over the eyes of voters.

The issues that have been brought out concerning Wright , Ayers, and Rezko are
troubling but if they are innocent, so be it. If not, we need to know. The problem with just accepting someone like Obama on his word alone and his outstanding oratorical skills is not enough.

“Why is it the only way to know a candidate is to see them as flawed?” Did I imply anywhere that I wanted to see a “flawed” candidate? No, I want to know “IF” he is flawed. And if he is, is it serious enough to prevent him from serving as president? If there is no “October Surprise”, fantastic. Then we have a truly moral man running for the presidency. Then again, we had what was considered a truly moral man occupying the White House and it was a total disaster. Remember Jimmy Carter?

My final rebuttal: Rob W [another commenter], I couldn’t agree more - Mr. Obama has been in this race now for over a year, as he’s said - Children have been born and are walking now in regards to the length of this campaign. Peddler insists that the Press has been Molly-coddling Mr Obama and not been doing its job. Perhaps to an extent that’s true, perhaps they’ve not explored the Rezko incidents as much as the Rev Wright Incident. (I discount Mr. Obama’s association with Wm Ayers as a non issue, b/c that’s what it is) but neither has the media in this campaign rehashed any of the old Clinton connections, or taken a close examination of Mr. McCain outside of the McNasty high school nick-name.

The arguement that somehow we don’t know Mr. Obama, is as you’ve insinuated and I’ve said in contrast to Peddler, should be a moot point. I’ve stated (rather cynically) that people only accept ‘knowing someone’ when they know they’re flawed - it’s political schadenfreude. This schadenfreude made itself imminently clear with Peddler’s own words:

“The man behind the curtain needs to be revealed once and for all and then let the voters decide if he is the right person to occupy the White House.”

Peddler pointed this reticent desire among many Americans when he pointed out the Presidency Mr. Jimmy Carter insinuating that someone with so few skeletons in the closet must therefore be ineffectual. His cynicism, representative of much of the American people’s own cynicism after years of lies and scandal, is: “The problem with just accepting someone like Obama on his word alone and his outstanding oratorical skills is not enough.”

What is wrong with accepting someone on their word alone, that’s been a hallmark ethics system of this country -taking a man by his word. This is something that both Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama have emphasized in their campaigns the transformational notion that with involvement and transparency their can be a return to trust in our nation, trust in the government and in a way with one another.

I'll update if the debate continues.

Sphere: Related Content