What Obama Is Really Like Is More Important Than The Issues
April 23, 2008, 09:46 PM
A+
|
a-
Print Friendly and PDF
Steve Sailer has a post on his own site in which he says:
As you'll recall, last week, in the 21st Democratic candidates' debate, the press finally got around to asking Obama repeatedly about some of the evidence that he is (or, perhaps, was) farther to the left than his expensively honed public image would suggest.

When Obama couldn't come up with reassuring answers, this line of questioning was widely denounced by his supporters. Why is the press wasting time on trivia like who Obama really is, the pundits thundered, when it could be asking important questions, like about the difference in Obama's and Hillary's stance on individual mandates in government health insurance plans.

Not only does no one care about that stuff, but they shouldn't—ask econoblogger Megan McArdle :
You can't judge a candidate on their policy platform; half of it is shameless pandering with fictional numbers, and the rest of it won't pass Congress.[ Fight the conventional wisdom (April 22, 2008) ]

She suggests deciding by their voting records. But the fierce whining by Tom Shales, for example, that George Stephanopoulos

looked like an overly ambitious intern helping out at a subcommittee hearing, digging through notes for something smart-alecky and slimy. He came up with such tired tripe as a charge that Obama once associated with a nutty bomb-throwing anarchist.

misses the point entirely. Stephanopoulos is a mainstream media journalist. He's supposed to slime the candidates—it's his job. And if he hadn't been able to figure out for himself that the viewers are more interested in personal scandal than they are in the candidates' largely imaginary policy positions, he would have learned when he workedin the Clinton White House.