The President We Deserve

...or Who Gets Elected and Why.





I would hope that every school child, whether or not they are of voting age, watched the Presidential Debate in school. More, I would hope they watched some of the commentary by the talking heads after the debate. It was much more instructional than the debate itself.




Rather than go over, point by point the content of each side, an inordinate amount of time was spent discussing the facial tics, the reactions and the general appearance and demeanor of each candidate. The content of the statements, accusations and defensive positions of each, much less the facts, were a distant second, and hardly merited a mention.




It was repeatedly said that Obama merely had to look Presidential, meaning calm, smooth talking and unflustered. McCain, being the less eloquent and glib of the two, by this measure, lost.




Fox News used the analogy of a tennis match. It was said that Obama merely lobbed back McCain's questions, and thereby won the set. Then the discussion turned to the candid reactions caught when the candidates thought they were not on camera. It is these candid, honest reactions that received the most discussion.




It was said that McCain had 'interesting' facial expressions, and it was unclear what those expressions meant. I can only assume the looks of incredulity and utter disbelief are what was being questioned. This was also intimated to be something derogatory about McCain. I was wondering at this point if these people and I had just watched the same debate.


I was not in the least bit confused by McCain's reactions, and actually found them refreshing. In real life, if someone denies something to you that you know is a proven fact, that you know others know is a proven fact, a look of shocked disbelief at what you were hearing would be normal. If I were the first person listener, I would have a hard time not busting out laughing at the audacity of the statements.


The same commentators said Obama's snickers at McCain's statements were hinted at as being a possible turn-off to the American public. It was said that he may have seemed condescending. Actually, being the mother of son's, I recognized his reaction. It is the snicker of the 'guilty as charged'. When caught with crumbs on their lips and they say "Not me!" to the question "Who took the last cookie?". They know they are caught, but, they think it is an inconsequential thing, there will be no real repercussions, so they are determined to stick to their story. They do grow out of this, eventually, and learn that no matter what they did wrong, the only way to make it worse is to lie.



The consensus was that Obama won the debate, not on substance, but on perception. Even McCain's supporters were disappointed in him for his refusal to go on the attack on William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko, not to mention a whole list of his questionable at best associations, both past and present. A McCain supporter was actually questioned if McCain didn't appear negative, of running a negative campaign, for posing the few questions he did about William Ayers.




McCain said repeatedly during the debate and all throughout his campaign that he will not spend his time attacking Obama and being negative. He does not want people to vote 'against' someone, he wants to give people something to vote 'for'. He has chosen, perhaps to his detriment, to address the issues he believes in, the policies he wants to enact, and the experience and integrity he brings. This is both noble and honorable. McCain proved his integrity again during the debate when he roundly repudiated statements made by others, that are factually inaccurate about Obama, as well as those that are simply derogatory, inflammatory, or down-right vicious. McCain made it abundantly clear this is a mark of his character. Interestingly, Obama spent more time complaining about what was said about him than he did decrying what his supporters have said that has been inaccurate, inflammatory, derogatory or down-right vicious about McCain. Obama even accused McCain of not denouncing statements made by supporters at rallies where McCain was not even present. McCain responded that he did at the time, and he did so again at the debate. Again, a shining example of the character of both candidates.


However, I too was a bit disappointed that McCain did not address Obama's associations. I do not believe questioning Obama, to his face, on national television about his choice in spiritual mentor (Jeremiah Wright), his choice of political godfather (William Ayers) and his choice of professional associates (Tony Rezko) and economic advisers, (Tim Howard, James Johnson and Franklin Raines) is running a negative campaign. I believe this would have been the appropriate venue. The American voter would have had an opportunity to see the character and judgement of each candidate in clear, concise terms.


Character particularly becomes an issue when Obama's answers to and reactions to these associations were first publicized. To be kind, let's just say he 'minimized'. Once it was widely publicized how racist and Anti-American Jeremiah Wrights' sermons often are, Obama quit the congregation. As if after 20 years of sitting in a pew in this man's church, his views were suddenly news to Obama. Obama called this man his spiritual advisor, but then denounced his association with him. The campaign went so far as to repeat a statement of Jeremiah Wrights' that Obama didn't attend church that often, as if to excuse his 20 year association.

During the debate, and on the campaign trail, Obama said that the crimes against this country that William Ayers committed happened when Obama was eight years old. While that is true, the acts of William Ayers, the co-founder of The Weather Underground, were acts of terrorism, and he has since stated that his only regret from that time is that he didn't conduct more bombings. That statement from Ayers came in 2001, AFTER Obama sat in the man's living room and launched his political career. Interestingly, because of his known, admitted and proven association with William Ayers, Obama would not qualify for the Secret Service, would not qualify to be his own bodyguard.



Obama then attempted to characterize Ayers as simply a professor of education. He flat out denied that Ayers launched Obama's political career with a fundraiser and exploratory meeting in William Ayers' living room on the south side of Chicago. Previously, Obama has said Ayers was "just a guy who lives in the neighborhood". The fact that this man is someone Obama turned to early in his career, associated with through several organizations, raises some troubling questions, to say the least. The fact that Obama has chosen to attempt to hide this association is the most troubling of all.


It is perfectly acceptable to have one or even two people close to you that would be viewed by the public at large as 'marginal'. It is perfectly acceptable to say, "this person is a personal friend, or a neighbor, and as they have been kind to me, I see no reason to thrash them publicly". However, when those associations rise to the level of political godfather and spiritual advisor, the character of those people should be examined. When that character is shown to be radical, extreme and Anti-American, the judgement of choosing those people to be such an integral, fundamental part of your life is an appropriate area to be examined. When you then deny these associations, lie about the extent of involvement in and affect on your personal and public life, and then characterize questions about these individuals as personal and negative attack ads, the questions raised are troubling to say the least.



It is a testament to McCain's character that he has, possibly to his own detriment, taken the higher moral ground. My fear is that in not directly addressing this, he has done a disservice to the American people. Voters are smart, contrary to popular belief. Voters will listen to a question and an answer, and judge for themselves, particularly if that question and answer came from the candidates themselves. The fact that those questions seem negative is simply because they are about a negative situation. By not addressing them directly, McCain did the honorable thing and kept his word, but I fear that because these issues have not been addressed, voters are being forced to make a decision without all the facts.




Americans and everyone else in the world, let this be your civics lesson for the day. We do not elect the most qualified, honorable, honest, intelligent person for the highest office in the land. We elect the one who, according to the talking heads at least, LOOKS the part. At some point, the media has hijacked our electoral system. Thank God for the Internet, or there would be nowhere to turn for if not the truth, then at least the substance.


And that is how we get the President we deserve, not the President we need.