Something struck me as I read James Taranto’s comments (via Instapundit*) on liberals made unhappy by last week’s Democratic debate in Philadelphia: their bellyaching undermines their own rationale for supporting this charismatic man lacking executive experience for the highest office in the land.
I mean, if their guy were this great post-partisan figure (as all too many of them claim), able through his very presence and the singularity of his circumstances to unite and lead the counry, he would be able to rise above even the most partisan of moderators and the most antagonistic of journalists. (See e.g., Ronald Reagan and Sam Donaldson.) That they would whine that he got harsh treatment from the media suggests they lack confidence in his ability to withstand such tough questioning.
Made of Teflon he ain’t. Or at least they don’t think him to be.
Can they tell me how they expect a man who they don’t think can handle tough questions can handle the rigors of a job which includes the responsibilities of Commander in Chief and Chief Executive of the United States?
So, with thir bellyaching in mind, I have few more questions (hope they’re not too shoddy or despicable) for Obama supporters:
- What makes your man such an unusual politician?
- What has he accomplished to merit your enthusiasm and to show his fitness for the White House?
- If your man is as great as you claim, why are you whining about the debate? Do you really believe his stature should exempt him from intense and probing questioning?
- Wouldn’t a man who seeks to lead our great nation be able to dismiss unfair questions much as one such leader handled a question about his age in 1984?
*While I normally try to catch Taranto’s Best of the Web everyday, I did follow Glenn’s link to it before I got to it on my own today, so by the standard of common (blogging) courtesy, I own him a hat tip.
UPDATE:Â Obama must really hate tough questions as he is refusing to debate Mrs. Clinton in North Carolina.