Aaron Keith Harris
2008-04-25 07:00:00.0
Current rank: Not ranked

BALTIMORE -

With Tuesday’s double-digit landslide for Sen. Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party stumbles toward Denver, with each candidate’s chances against Republican Sen. John McCain dwindling with every news cycle.

Last week’s debate in Philadelphia was perhaps the most revealing of this presidential campaign cycle. With no bells monitoring answers, both candidates had the time they needed to explain themselves. But neither benefited from the chance to show voters — especially independents and wobbly Republicans — their personal side. Clinton’s icy arrogance and Sen. Barack Obama’s smooth shallowness shone.

Perhaps that’s why many people didn’t like the debate. Chief among them is Tom Shales, The Washington Post’s television writer, who blasted ABC anchors Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos for their “shoddy, despicable performances” focused on “specious and gossipy trivia that has already been hashed and rehashed.”

Though critical of the entire debate, Shales says ABC’s coverage “seemed slanted against Obama.” And he takes great care in trying to explain away Obama’s missteps.

Shales objects to a question about “the controversial ravings of the pastor at a church attended by Obama.” Surely Trinity United Church of Christ is not merely “a” church attended by Obama, but Obama’s home church to which he’s given more than $20,000 in the last few years.

And never mind that Wright’s racist, America-hating rants seem to directly contradict the heart of Obama’s appeal as a “post-racial” candidate, or one of racial reconciliation.

Obama has never adequately explained this apparent contradiction, nor has he explained why it’s appropriate to accept a 2001 campaign donation and political support from William Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground, a domestic terrorist organization that targeted and killed Americans.

Obama was also asked about his statement the previous week about the voting habits of Pennsylvanians facing hard economic times: “And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

At the debate he explained, “It’s not the first time I made a misstatement that was mangled up, and it won’t be the last.” Shales says this comment was made “with refreshing candor.”

Candor had nothing to do with it. Presidential candidates are adults, and they do not get to make their own insensitive or impolitic comments disappear by claiming they misspoke. When they try to do so, they are lying.

Indeed, this notion that evangelical Christians and other cultural conservatives need to be persuaded to forget about issues like abortion, guns, immigration and affirmative action in favor of liberal economic policies is not new to the left.

Thomas Franks’ 2004 book, “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” addresses the idea, which comes from Karl Marx’s infamous saying that religion is the “opium of the people.”

Bill Maher’s recent anti-Catholic comments were much more harsh than Obama’s comment, but they come from the same place.

They simply don’t understand why certain people actually believe in — and choose to live by — moral truths not subject to a vote.

Clinton said during the debate that voters are “ready for leadership again that will summon them to something greater than themselves.”

But neither she nor Obama seems to be concerned with anything other than purely material concerns — saving the planet, college loans, mandating a health care fix — that need to be fulfilled by the state.

Perhaps that’s one reason why Pope Benedict — who stands for something transcendent — was received in America so warmly.

Aaron Keith Harris writes about politics, the media, pop culture and music and is a regular contributor to National Review Online and Bluegrass Unlimited. He can be reached at aaronkeithharris@gmail.com.