Democrats Clashed At New Hampshire Debate
Not much new here, but there's one thing in the article I found that puzzles me:
To a question on whether English should be the official language in the United States, only former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel raised his hand in the affirmative.
But Obama protested the question itself, calling it "the kind of question that was designed precisely to divide us." He said such questions "do a disservice to the American people."
Why is it that when a politician is asked a direct closed-ended question that he/she does not want to answer, he/she attacks the question?
How utterly arrogant is this?
In many people's minds in this country, this is a legitimate question. It requires a yes or no answer, and in true politician-like form it can even have a long-winded caveat attached to it, if it makes them feel better about it. But to attack this question or others that the voters want answered is, in my view, cowardly.
But, I reserve the real criticism for his reasoning in his calling into question, the question. The purpose of a debate is to divide the candidates, to see where they stand in the issues of the day. How can voters decide who they want to support if certain questions are not asked? Political parties are not some monolithic force or entity, they have divisions too. Why is it not fair to want to know the answer to this question, as part of the overall process of deciding who would be best suited to represent the party, in 08?
Look, voters decide what issues are issues not the politicians. They decide what they want to know about their representatives, they decide what are important to them. The problem with most of the elected officials today is, they have forgotten who they work for.
My thinking is, they certainly hope the American electorate is too ignorant to notice such blatant bait and switch techniques.