William Katz: Urgent Agenda
|
||
|
THE DEMOCRATS DEBATE, AGAIN AND AGAIN If Democrats debate and nobody tunes in, is that racism? No, maybe that's not the right question. Racism, and charges thereof, were off the table last night as Democrats debated in Nevada, where prostitution and politics are both legal. Chuck Todd, one of the great pros at covering elections, reports that it was a mild affair. There were, by the way, only three participants - Clinton, Obama and Edwards. Great name for a law firm. The most important Democratic news of the day, though, wasn't the debate. It was an obvious shift in Obama's strategy, hoped for in this space last week. He's finally confronting the doubts about him, and this he must do. Some of those doubts are expressed in whispers, but whispers have a remarkable power to push voting levers. The day began with a solid column from The Washington Post's Richard Cohen, one of the few columnists who has been tough on Obama. It questioned the candidate's association with a Chicago clergyman who has a record of supporting Louis Farrakhan, the extremist leader of the Nation of Islam. While he should have done it a long time ago, Obama responded with a swift, and very strong denunciation of Farrakhan:
Okay that's fine. It was direct and clear, with no self-pity or cries of "guilt by association." There has to be more of it. Some may decry questioning Obama about his religious affiliations, but it's legitimate. We have a right to know why he joined a church whose minister holds extreme positions. Guilt by association? Bluntly stated, what's wrong with that? It's been a buzz term in our politics since the McCarthy era of the early fifties. However, we judge people by the company they keep all the time. We're talking about an election, not a trial. If a president associated with mobsters, it would be proper to bring it out. If a former president associates with oil sheiks who help finance his center, that should be brought out, too. Right, Mr. Carter? Posted on January 16, 2008.
|
|