Today, Senator Obama spoke on the Reverend Wright controversy and made clear what he believes. Three points came out of his speech and I am sure he only intended one point. The biggest issue resolved was that he explained why he continued to befriend Reverend Wright and why he continued to be a part of his congregation. His explanation was both eloquent and clear. He personally understands the reasons why Reverend Wright thinks the way he does and he understands why it is different from the way he (Senator Obama) thinks. Barack Obama defined the differences so well that it had the ring of truth and clarity. This writer is convinced that Senator Obama has not exercised poor judgment when sitting through Reverend Wright’s sermons; that he successfully compartmentalized what Reverend Wright was saying compared to what he believes.

He did not address or explain the previous statements that he had never experienced these sermons personally yet now in this speech stated that he had heard the questionable sermons all along. Do we chalk this deception up to political gamesmanship? The straight talk was absent here. Two other issues surfaced during his speech, that shine a clearer light on what and how Senator Obama thinks.

His statement, that he will find a way out of the war in Iraq, did not ring as clearly as his previous definitive proclamations regarding the speed of removal of our troops if elected and taking office. Does this mean that he now understands that unraveling Iraq will be like cutting a fine diamond and that it cannot be done haphazardly or hastily? To improperly unravel or to just leave Iraq may create more world problems for us in the future than remaining and continuing to stabilize the country, which is currently happening.He needs to be pressed on this by the unbiased media – if we can find them.

His statement that we need to stop corporations from sending jobs out of the country just for the sake of profit demonstrates a glaring lack of understanding of how capitalism works and creeps up upon a socialist agenda. Under capitalism with some controls, the better the environment for profit, the better the environment for growth and prosperity.This means jobs – good jobs! The jobs are leaving because the corporations need to make profit to survive and will seek out the most advantageous environment to make that profit, even if it means to create and manufacture elsewhere. It is the responsibility of a government in a capitalistic economy to foster an environment to entice corporations both foreign and domestic to produce here thus creating good jobs and plenty of them.You cannot regulate jobs unless you are in a failing communist or socialist economy where the standard of living misery is balanced and widespread.

He should be seeking to change the health care system by relieving corporations of this burden and ameliorate the corporate tax rates to foster a profitable environment for corporations producing in this country and trading with the world.This should be the fix he seeks. This will place corporations doing business in this country in a position to grow and sustain good paying jobs. Remember, corporations do not pay taxes they collect them for the government from you in the form of higher prices, but in the world trade environment they cannot pass these taxes on so they become uncompetitive. When they are uncompetitive they move to an environment where they can be competitive and move the jobs elsewhere. He should not be condemning profit, which is the engine of prosperity and standard of living as long as it is heavily laced with successful world trade.

MSNBC’s debate the other evening focused on three themes. The health insurance debate, of which there is little difference between the plans of Senators Clinton and Obama, non-issue oriented questions of both moderators, and how NAFTA is ruining Ohio.  First, the loss of jobs in Ohio is tied to the extensive use of technology in manufacturing, and the worldwide competitiveness of a multitude of manufacturing nations and our governments failure to prepare us to compete in a fierce worldwide trade market.  It has little to do with Canada, whose manufacturing industry is on the decline, and Mexico which is responsible for only 11% of our imports – these two nations are NAFTA.  Do you think one moderator or candidate might have pointed out the trade problem distinction - if the candidates did not know then find new candidates, because neither is ready to be President?

Beyond this apparent gaff, I can tell you I have had about enough of debate questions designed to incite.  I would hope that moderators would refrain from asking – How do you feel about your opponent’s attacks on you?  The moderators clearly either don’t want to do fact checked follow-up questions or are just not knowledgeable enough to do these necessary questions.  I need to be fair and point out that the overall news media in general, not just MSNBC, has not served this nation well with the choice of moderators for most of the debates. They seem more inclined to talk feelings, attack ads, and gotcha quotes.  Often the political leaning of the moderator falls out all over their desk like a spilled can of red paint.It is noticed.  Does anyone with a brain really care what these media types think and how they lean politically?

Why can’t we have a debate where tough questions are asked that test the knowledge, readiness to lead, the judgment of the candidate, and the enterprise to work through the political mine field to achieve a goal?  Why does it appear that questions are tailored for the candidate, either to make them look poorly or to make them look presidential – okay, we might know the answer to that question?Of course, the positions of the candidates need to be learned; however, these positions are usually on their web site or in their campaign handouts or can be found in their opponent’s attack ads.

One moderator, last night, did make an attempt at asking the same hypothetical question to each candidate, but the question had a predictable answer before it was asked.It had something to do with - if Iraq asked us to leave, would we leave.Duh!  What candidate, in their right mind, after the U.S. has recognized Iraq as a sovereign nation, would say - no we will stay anyway.  Of course they would say – yes we will leave.This is the best this highly trained moderator could come up with?

Perhaps each candidate should be asked different questions, perhaps placed in envelopes chosen at random by each candidate.  The moderator points out that these are tough question with no easy answers.

1. The moderator opens the envelope and then says asks the hypothetical but realistic question: Senator, as President, you have pulled out of Iraq, Iran has filled the void in Iraq and has now taken control of the Strait of Hormuz.It now controls 60% of the world’s oil exports.Iran is refusing oil shipments to the United States.  How do you respond to this threat?
2. The moderator opens the next envelope, selected by the next candidate, and asks: Three years from now, Iran hits Israel with a low yield nuclear tipped missile, 10,000 are dead, and Israel is mobilizing to go to nuclear war with Iran.  How do you respond to this crisis?

These questions are realistic, the solutions are cloudy, but the depth of a candidate response to the question will tell us a whole lot about the candidate. When will we start to ask tough questions of these candidates?  The media today is not providing any help in picking candidates. The media is more fixated on what Bill Cunningham said, who released the goofy picture of Senator Obama, or printing a story on page one that there is rumor and suspicion that Senator McCain may have possibly had an affair with a lobbyist and possibly or perhaps could have done favors on behalf of that lobbyist, like send a letter to the FCC asking a government agency only to make a decision - not how to make the decision. What are they teaching in journalism school – Tabloid 101?

For more commentary like this go to http://www.brokengovernment.wordpress.com