We Need a Slick Candidate to Beat Barack Obama the Gaffe Machine?
I read today a piece written by a friend of mine named Michael Ledeen. I’ve quoted Michael Ledeen on this program before. He’s a noted scholar and think tank thinker, and he’s done a lot of thinking for a lot of different think tanks. He’s been associated with I think Heritage and a number of them. Now, what he’s primarily known for in recent years has been championing the cause of the Iranian people against the oppression that they face each and every day. He’s always been a staunch supporter of the United States military, keen observer, if you will, of the American political scene, and he has a submission here and I happened to receive a copy of it. It’s about this whole notion that Obama is so much smarter than all the rest of us. The reason why this appealed to me is because it’s a question I bring up on this program all the time all the time: What is smart?
I’ve always said that we need to redefine what it is, ’cause I don’t think Obama’s smart. I go totally against the conventional wisdom. I look at his gaffes, I look at his inability to speak without a teleprompter, I say, “Where is this notion that he’s brilliant, where does this come from?” Does it come from his ability to speak or read a teleprompter? It must be. I know that that’s a large part of it, and a lot of people by the same token thought Bush was not particularly smart because he looked like a deer in the headlights reading a teleprompter a lot, like they say Dan Quayle did. In fact, I was at dinner with some friends last night. This is kind of frustrating, too. These people are us, folks. I mean they count themselves as one of us and they’re saying, “You know, it doesn’t matter who we nominate, doesn’t matter. The American voter doesn’t care about substance. All the American voter cares about is what somebody looks like on television and how they sound. If they look good, they sound smart, that’s all it takes to become president.”