Time's interpretation is more generous, of course: he's just "prickly," and they have further excahnges that support this thesis. For example, they next go on to ask about how his campaign has changed, become more traditional, and he obviously doesn't want to discuss it:
[Your] campaign today is more disciplined, more traditional, more aggressive. From your point of view, why the change?
I will do as much as we possibly can do to provide as much access to the press as possible.
But beyond the press, sir, just in terms of ...
I think we're running a fine campaign, and this is where we are.
Do you miss the old way of doing it?
I don't know what you're talking about.
Really? Come on, Senator.
I'll provide as much access as possible ...
I can understand him not wanting to discuss the demise of his trademarked "Straight Talk Express," and gettig prickly when asked to do so. But "honor"?
Well, there's either two choices here. One is that he really is prickly for the exact same reason: it reminds him of what he's abandoned, and it angers him to confront it.
But I think the more likely reason is that, like so many other things, he knows he'd just make a fool of himself, because he doesn't know what he's talking about. And this time, it would actually be (a) reported, (b) noticed, and (c) repeated. Endlessly. By Leno, Letterman and everyone else.
Can you imagine the uproar if Obama refused to define "honor"? But with McCain, apparently, trying to define it posed the greater peril. Either that, or we have to question his judgement. |
