In the analysis of most commentators I believe last night's debate will be considered a draw. Both candidates were obviously not completely comfortable with the format, neither looked directly at the opponent for about the first 45 minutes, and they only got a bit more testy as the night wore on. If neither scored a knockout punch, then what else can we say about the candidates as they faced off head to head?
The debate hurt McCain more since he needed a knockout punch if he expected to pick up much needed votes. Also, it is difficult to evaluate the visible but hard to interpret reaction line that ran beneath the screen, consisting of Democrats, Republicans, and critically important Independents, but I would guesstimate that the Independents found Obama's words and promises more appealing.
On the other hand, several comments are in order. The issues of the economy seemed to have stumped Obama. When asked directly if he favored the proposed $700 billion dollar bailout, he waffled. Then, as a follow-up, when asked what he would cut since he identified not everything can be funded and some projects would need to be delayed, he again seem mystified. We are in dire financal straits but Obama went on to list more programs that he favored and would pay for, treasured Great Society programs such as education and food for poor children. Obama doesn't get it. He is not LBJ. We don't have that federal largesse any more. At one point McCain noted that Obama is the furthest from center candidate ever nominated by either major party. On the other hand, McCain stated his position bluntly. He would pay for defense, care for our veterans, and veto spending bills to reign in the free-spending government. In a time of fiscal crisis, which guideline might work? The French before the Revolution fell into a tailspin during war time yet they continued to fund extravagant projects.
In addition, McCain has been there. During any questions that involved how would you handle such and such international crisis or war effort, McCain was able to deftly respond, I've been there, I know the particulars and the players, and this is what I would do. Obama was left flailing on the ropes. He is embarrassingly out of his league in experience and international affairs, and the global situation is more dangerous today than it ever was during the Cold War. He is not prepared to handle an international crisis.
On the specific issues of war, Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama is running against the ghost of George Bush circa 2003. It is not 2003; it is 2008 and the surge worked in Iraq, and the military can apply the lessons learned there to achieve covert and overt victory in Afghanistan as well. Yet, Obama said we need to press Pakistan and take care of Osama et. al. by ourselves if necessary. As McCain rightly observed, you don't announce your intentions to your enemies, and doesn't Obama realize we have CIA assets in Pakistan who no doubt at this very moment are operating undercover? You don't unnecessarily put your troops at risk.
And, last but not least, isn't the lack of respect towards McCain revealing? Obama consistently referred to McCain as "John," ironically, even calling him "Tom" at one point, as if they were long-time colleagues from the Senate. They are not. In the Senate, Obama is in the background but McCain is a player who has reached across the aisle and cooperated with Democracts to sponsor major legislation. McCain, on the other hand, conducted himself as a gentleman, and respectfully referred to Obama as "Senator."
In the critical issue of experience versus judgement, McCain's experience trumped Obama's hailing of his sound judgement by calling him to task. Obama can not deliver; he is the Teflon candidate.
Posts
