The "Trivial" Debate

Obama supporters have spent the last week complaining about the debate hosted by ABC. Obama himself went on the Colbert Report and put "trivialities" on notice. ABC responded by pointing out that Republicans are likely to bring up the same points that they asked.

At its heart, the Obama camp and, to some extent the Clinton camp, are complaining that the debates should be there to put the candidates in the best possible light. They wanted the debates to focus on policy. Instead the first several questions were "trivial".

I think that ABC was correct. Candidates like to campaign on their platform but there are no guarantees that the platform will be enacted. Bush's platform called for a humble foreign policy and no more nation-building. Clinton promised universal health care, a small tax cut, and gays in the military. Both found that realities changed once they were in office. The signature events of these administrations - war with Iraq and welfare reform - were never mentioned on the campaign trail.

Bill Clinton also provides an object lesson that many candidates will promise anything to get elected then fall back on their core beliefs  and/or political expediency after they are elected.

In Obama's case we have a politician who is still unknown. He is probably quite a bit to the left of the image he projects but we don't know. We are forced to look at things that seem trivial as insights into his character. How does he feel about America? He has refused to wear a flag pin. His minister denounces America. His wife implies that she was never proud of her country. Does that mean that Obama himself dislikes the country he wants to lead? Maybe. The only way to find out is to keep digging.

What about Obama's claim to be a "post-racial" candidate? That one seems a bit easier. He casually mentioned that most white people in America are racist and he stereotyped rural Pennsylvanians as being religious, gun-loving racists. His first book, Dreams from my Father, is all about his quest to create a racial identity. Contrary to his claims, Obama is a racially polarizing figure. Does America want this in a leader? This is not trivial.

What is trivial is to debate minor details of primary campaign platforms. These will be modified after the national convention. If Obama (or Hillary) is elected then he can suggest legislation to Congress but once there it is open to endless amending. Anything passed will be substantially different from the current platforms.

America does not elect a platform. America elects a leader who will have to respond to events that have not yet happened. We elect the man (or Hillary) based on our confidence that he can take that 3 am call, not because of minor differences in health care proposal coverage. We want the best leader, not the highest bidder.