So the media is supposedly tougher on McCain than on Obama, huh?
Then how come it's fair to question the latter's youth and inexperience while the former's age is officially an off-limits topic? As far as I'm concerned, if it's okay to publicly vet Obama and his lack of political experience, it's just as important to question why, if the Arizona senator is so vastly qualified for the office of president, it has taken him until his 71st birthday to win the support of his own party. Should he be successful this fall, McCain will become the oldest first-term president in our nation's history. So why couldn't he win the Republican nomination over a far less qualified G.H.W. Bush eight years ago? Like the co-worker who's been at your company for thirty years, he's either invaluable or unhirable, depending on your point of view.
Similarly, Obama has been criticized for the way he allegedly "exploited" his wife and two children by granting an entertainment network exclusive permission for an interview. Yet we are not allowed to even mention the misgivings of the torch-bearer for the party of "family values", such as his failed first marriage and admitted infidelity? The horrific story of McCain's torturous years as a war prisoner in North Vietnam is universally accepted support for his patriotism. However, no one even mentions his role in the infamous Keating Five. McCain's irresponsible business dealings during the Savings & Loan mess epitomized the ego-centric state of our economy in the late 1980s. Was this not emblematic of a man putting himself ahead of duty to country? At the very least, shouldn't it receive as much scrutiny as the issue of whether the other party's presumptive nominee wears a freaking flag pin on his lapel?
This brand of pettiness was in full inexplicable force during Obama's overseas visits. So why is the media given the green light to deconstruct every aspect of Obama's public appearances in Europe and the Middle East, while any talk of McCain's well-known temper has somehow been deemed unfair treatment? Even when questioning Obama's character--in particular his supposed snubbing of injured soldiers--McCain threatened what he called "a seismic event" had the Pentagon attempted to enforce its policy on a hypothetical McCain overseas hospital visit. A seismic event? Did ANYONE holding microphone or notepad say so much as, "Beg pardon, Senator?" The clip has been played ad nauseum. You mean to tell me in all this time that no talking head has uttered a syllable calling out his threat of an eruption? Yeah, the poor old guy's got it rough.
Then there are the spouses. Michelle Obama's sound byte about being a proud American for the first time--woefully out of context, of course--has been rolled so much the digital files are wearing out. She has explained herself and the comment numerous times. You'll have to take my word for it, since you likely never saw it on any of the major networks. For some reason, Cindy McCain's Vicodin addiction, the illegal prescriptions she obtained from the non-profit organization she founded, the employee she fired who discovered the scandal (and ultimately shared it with the DEA) and the subsequent investigation doesn't seem to be as important an indicator of a prospective First Lady's virtue than a sentence taken out of context.
But back to the hubbies. Isn't the temperament of the man who would run our country a legitimate issue? Isn't it at least as important as, say, the assessment that Obama's mannerisms suggest those of a man who had already won the election--in other words, that the guy with so little experience now, to his own detriment, somehow seems "too presidential"?
-------
By the way, can someone please explain to me how McCain possibly benefits from the surge in Iraq being successful? No level of our success can make the decision to go to war with Iraq any more rational. Put it this way. Let's say W gets it in his head that all he needs to reverse his approval numbers is to bomb the hell out of Cuba. The odds would greatly favor our armed forces winning this battle. But would victory make the decision to attack any more sound--much less sane?
