Sunday, August 05, 2007

Hooray for Hypotheticals

 
While I found the examples used to paint Mitt Romney as a buffoon inaccurate in this case (though he already did himself in permanently with two words: "Double Guantanamo!"), this article highlights a good note - that the more transparent candidates (and the entire next presidency) can be, the more points they can score. 
 
I hope everyone else is as sick as I am of secrets-related management (secret tribunals, secret committees, secretive leadership methods, secret alliances, secret legislation modifications, etc.).  Transparency is one thing I think is a differentiator and which a few candidates in particular have really stepped up to or have it naturally in them (Barack Obama, Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel when he's not throwing rocks into ponds).  Others might see transparency as a weakness, I agree with Slate (God help me) that it's as a significant strength. 
 
Now the unspoken question in the article is whether Barack can overcome the double-team (or more) and stand by the strength of his non-nuclear argument.  In my opinion, his argument in this case is an example of very strong leadership, and I'd like to see him go further on the offensive to really highlight with details why his answer is right and why his critics are clearly the wrong choice for President.  I hope he doesn't get drowned out in the media din before we can see if he's got the fortitude to do that.
 

No comments: