Friday, November 30, 2007

Peggy Noonan on the Question Democrats Won't Have to Answer [SK]

Justin Taylor posts this gem from Peggy Noonan. She writes:

I will never forget that breathtaking moment when, in the CNN/YouTube debate earlier this fall, the woman from Ohio held up a picture and said, "Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama, Mr. Edwards, this is a human fetus. Given a few more months, it will be a baby you could hold in your arms. You all say you're 'for the children.' I would ask you to look America in the eye and tell us how you can support laws to end this life. Thank you."

They were momentarily nonplussed, then awkwardly struggled to answer, to regain lost high ground. One of them, John Edwards I think, finally criticizing the woman for being "manipulative," using "hot images" and indulging in "the politics of personal destruction." The woman then stood in the audience for her follow up. "I beg your pardon, but the literal politics of personal destruction--of destroying a person--is what you stand for."

Oh, I wish I weren't about to say, "Wait, that didn't happen." For of course it did not. Who of our media masters would allow a question so piercing on such a painful and politically incorrect subject?

I thought of this the other night when citizens who turned out to be partisans for Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards asked the Republicans, in debate, would Jesus support the death penalty, do you believe every word of the Bible, and what does the Confederate flag mean to you?

It was a good debate, feisty and revealing. It's not bad that the questions had a certain spin, and played on stereotypes of the GOP. It's just bad that it doesn't quite happen at Democratic debates. Somehow, there, an obscure restraint sets in on the part of news producers. Too bad. Running for most powerful person in the world is, among other things, an act of startling presumption. They all should be grilled, everyone, both sides. Winter voting approaches; may many chestnuts be roasted on an open fire.

1 comment:

  1. I loved that debate!!! I think every candidate should be forced to answer the questions they do not want to hear, and I even think it is good when the they are phrased so poorly. That was the case with the kid and the bible. I want to know who can think on their feet and who is so certain of what they believe and why that no Democratic plant will trip them up or confuse them.

    I think this illustrates the fundamental problem with Hillary Clinton beyond the fact we hold radiaclly different ideas about the United States. She is a coward who plants soft ball questions in the audience.

    Let all of our fragile politicians face the House of Commons in Britain. Watching Tony Blair take on the House of Commons is how I learned to truly appreciate what it takes to face your opponents. We ought to have at least one debate that is a wild free for all of accusation and insanity just to see what these candidates are made of.



All comments are moderated. We reject all comments containing obscenity. We reserve the right to reject any and all comments that are considered inappropriate or off-topic without explanation.