The debates are a good way. When I watch, I listen for reasoning, more than actual decision. Granted, it is sometimes hard to extract the reasoning from the soundbites. Also, I am not a perfect philosopher -- I'd probably have been forced to poison myself long ago if I were -- so if I agree with the candidate's decision, I will probably be well-disposed toward their reasoning. But there are a lot of issues I don't have an answer to (e.g. what the hell we should now do about Iraq), and these are the ones I prefer to hear them talk about.
One example that struck me recently arose from the YouTube debates. The candidates were asked if they would meet with rogue leaders such as Fidel Castro and Kim Jong Il. Obama answered first, and he gave an unhesitating "yes." Other candidates went after him, and said "not until we have extracted concessions from them; we don't want to fall victim to a publicity coup for them." It was one of those things that can get you thinking "aha, this is where Obama's lack of experience trips him up."
And then maybe a week ago, I heard Obama take a dig at Clinton about that very issue -- he appears to actually take the position that this nigh-universal "it would be publicity for the bad guy" aversion to meeting these leaders does more to obstruct diplomacy than help it. And you know, he might be right. That single rejection of political orthodoxy demonstrated more differentiation than I had so far seen among the major candidates of either party, and it fascinated me.
One example that struck me recently arose from the YouTube debates. The candidates were asked if they would meet with rogue leaders such as Fidel Castro and Kim Jong Il. Obama answered first, and he gave an unhesitating "yes." Other candidates went after him, and said "not until we have extracted concessions from them; we don't want to fall victim to a publicity coup for them." It was one of those things that can get you thinking "aha, this is where Obama's lack of experience trips him up."
And then maybe a week ago, I heard Obama take a dig at Clinton about that very issue -- he appears to actually take the position that this nigh-universal "it would be publicity for the bad guy" aversion to meeting these leaders does more to obstruct diplomacy than help it. And you know, he might be right. That single rejection of political orthodoxy demonstrated more differentiation than I had so far seen among the major candidates of either party, and it fascinated me.
Reply
Leave a comment