|
|
It depends on what a debate
is
E.
Ablorh-Odjidja, Ghanadot
If you think the above title is not original, you are right. And
since plagiarism has regained its old notoriety because of the
tussle between Obama and the Clintons, I will admit that the
title was inspired by that famous line by Bill Clinton during
the Lewinsky affair; “It depends on what ‘is’ is.”
That happened about a decade ago. Bill Clinton’s argument
notwithstanding, about “what is is,” didn’t change the reference
for me. I never got to thinking that Bill was (past tense) a
carnivore.
Fast forward to the debate that took place yesterday, February
26, 2007, between Obama and Hilary in Cleveland on MSNBC. Who
won the debate? As told by the media it was a draw. Despite
Obama’s brilliance, the only concession some pundits would grant
him was that Hillary didn’t score a knock out.
No one mentioned that she almost knocked herself out or came
close to during the debate; with her statement about Farrakhan
and her failure to remember outright the name of Putin’s
putative successor and protégé. Or, that, Obama almost did her
in with his response to her demands concerning Farrakhan.
Concerning Farrakhan, Hillary had maintained that Obama should
have “rejected” Farrakhan flat out, instead of
“denouncing” him. No matter how strong his denouncement, Hillary
claimed Obama's denouncement was weak, that it was not enough;
this coming from a lady whose husband perfected the art of
“triangulation” in politics.
Interestingly, the most fascinating points in the debate were
the deliberateness and the lucidity of Obama’s statement on
issues. He was also the one who was polite and non-aggressive,
every bit presidential and remembering to concede a point or two
when necessary.
The above qualities became poignant when Obama, in the face of
pressure from Hillary on Farrakhan, replied that the latter had offered him nothing, and,
therefore, there was nothing to reject. Rather, he had chosen to
denounce Farrakhan in the strongest terms possible. But, should Hillary proclaim any
substantive difference between his denouncement and her
preferred rejection, then he Obama would be willing to concede
the point..
With that, Obama drew a fine line between sarcasm and civility
and left it for Hillary, the woman who has been touted as the
other half of the smartest couple in politics and an
intellectual, to cross. Of course, there couldn’t have been any
substantive difference between the two words, judging by the
circumstance. Hillary could, therefore, only cross the line at
the risk of her much vaunted intellect and Obama knew it!
That was the moment the media should have declared victory for
Obama. They were waiting for a knock out. They had it, but
ignored it and moved on.
Another ignored moment was when Hillary was asked about Putin’s
successor. She was caught sputtering and ended up saying
“whatever;” after attempting to recall the name of the man who
happened to be Russia’s First Deputy Prime Minister, Dmitry
Medvedev.
Well, had that been George Bush, it would have been proof
positive of his ignorance! But for the rest of us it served as a
“got cha” moment reminiscent of Bush's failure to name Perez
Musharraf as the leader of Pakistan in a pop quiz leading to the
2000 election.
Andy Hiller, a political reporter had asked Bush the question on Thursday, November 4, 1999. Musharraf had just elevated himself to power in a coup on
October 12,1999. To be
fair to Bush, Hiller, the reporter, didn't know who the
President of Mexico was either when asked.
However, up until
Hiller asked the question, Musharraf was an obscure person,
unlike Dmitry Medvedev who has served as First Deputy Prime
Minister to Putin and been in the glare of world media all
of last year.
With every reasonable expectation, Hillary Clinton, a Senator of
the US, should have recalled Medvedev’s name - unlike George
Bush, who as Governor of Texas was not in the loop of things so
far as foreign policy went.
Moreover, Hillary was the very one who has been selling herself
as the woman of experience and an expert on foreign affairs!
The media could have asked her why she could not recall or
pronounce Medvedev’s name, but Hillary was gracefully given a
pass, and thereby survived a lethal blow in the debate and went
on to collect the verdict of a draw in the end.
Earlier, she had brought out a complaint about always being the
first to be asked questions in debates with Obama. Conveniently,
she had forgotten that she got the closing question the last
time. The spontaneous ovation that came after, an act that
naturally followed curtain calls, was quickly interpreted as
applause for her alone and not for the two performers.
Thus, again, she was enabled to pull out a draw.
E.
Ablorh-Odjidja,Publsiher
www.ghanadot.com, Washington, DC, February 14, 2008
Permission to publish: Please feel free to publish or
reproduce, with credits, unedited. If posted at a website,
email a copy of the web page to
publisher@ghanadot.com . Or don't publish at all.
|
