Just got done watching the debate and my initials thoughts are that it was close- a win on points for Obama but certainly not the knockout punch that many of us Obama partisans wanted.
Jim Lehrer was not as good of a moderator as I thought he'd be. I love the Jim Lehrer Newshour, but I just thought that he was ineffective and more importantly, he was easily run over by the two candidates, especially John McCain. He tried desperately to get the candidates to actually engage each other but they did not do that either. Hopefully now that they are use to the format we will see more first person rather than third person addresses.
Lehrer started out asking about the bailout and Obama scored some easy and critical points. The beginning of the debate is the best time to be engaging, because people are actually paying attention. His opening statement was much better than McCain primarily because he was so much more forceful and much more direct. McCain looked very tired and tentative, like a worn out boxer who spends the first few rounds slowly circling his opponent. Obama certainly got the better of the economic parts of the debate, partially because he tied it to a larger narrative and partially because he just had more energy. He soundly connected our economic condition to the failed philosphy of the Bush administration and by extension John McCain. At the beginning of the debate, Obama was much better at placing McCain and Bush in the same category. It's a shame he got away from that as the night wore on. McCain in the early going was fixated with earmark spending making it seem much more important than it was and Obama rightly caught him on the fact that earmark/pork barrel spending is a fraction of the budget. As with most of his attacks however, Obama would not continue to press on them, letting them pass without much repetition. I can see how it was frustrating for Obama's supporters, but overall I think it was good strategy since he was primarily going for a presidential rather than a truly confrontational demeanor. McCain, for his part, was much more confrontational, if not directly, than it was definitely implied. As the economic section of the debate came to a close, McCain frequently expressed his condescension for Obama and it showed.
Both candidates avoided Lehrer's question about what part of their agenda they'd have to give up post-bailout like ebola. My roommate said he thought it was a dumb question, because it was impossible to answer. I thought it was a very good question in the abstract because it would help to narrow down their priorities, but it was a bad question for our politics, which rewards vague but pleasing answers and punishes unpalatable honesty. Barack tried in his own way to answer the question with a more positive spin by talking about what he would not cut rather than what he would. He also very smartly said that ending the Iraq War would help with a portion of the budget. McCain after again talking about earmarks proposed a spending freeze, which, if we had true conservatives, would have scored some points, but it was not pressed upon and advocating a spending freeze leaves one open for all kinds of attacks. Obama ended the economic portion by landing a punch on the entire Republican brand, saying that they were the cause of the increases in spending. Again, his followup was lacking; perhaps he was hoping that people would remember it anyway. Obama also had a good line in about using a scalpel in order to decrease spending instead of a hatchet. That was memorable and pretty pragmatic as well. This exchange could be scored as a draw.
It took nearly half an hour to get to the foreign policy portion of the debate, mostly because people kept interrupting but also because they HAD to work in the economic crises. The foreign policy portion of the debate was pretty much evenly split as both candidates could point to victories depending on the country of choice. Obama clearly won on Afghanistan, highlighting the Republicans failure and inability to stay focused in order to get the job done. He coupled our diversion in Iraq to the failures and turmoil in Afghanistan, particularly as it pertained to troop levels. He also tied in our growing concerns in Pakistan, and rightly clarified his position on Pakistan's sovereignity in the war on terror. He followed that with the one of the better lines of the night- the "I have a bracelet too," which seemed a little petty but also highlighted the fact that McCain has been using the same lines over and over again in his stump speeches. On Iraq, Obama was a little more hesitant- he had another great exchange on judgment which featured his only real repeatables (You were wrong!). He was in a precarious position because to explain the multifaceted reasons behind the surge would have been too academic, and he'd already conceded that territory. The best he could do was point out the problem of going into Iraq in the first place, which he did, and then try and reduce the damage of essentially agreeing that the surge has worked, which he had trouble with.
I also thought that Obama got the better of the Iran exchange- he used Henry Kissinger's words against McCain and showed that he is much more of a realist in terms of foreign policy than McCain. He did a good job of showing how our standing in the world and the Iraq war has strengthened Iran, and how using direct diplomacy without preconditions, would help to increase our standing and in the end undermine Iran's regional power. The bellicose neocon view of foreign policy has crowded out a view of the world AS IT IS, rather than as our political leaders imagine it to be for far too long, and ultimately I think Obama was effective in displaying his foreign policy credentials.
McCain did have his strong points. He clearly won the discussion on Russia and Georgia, if only because they fundamentally agreed on the position. Since McCain arrived there first, all he had to do was defend territory, which he did admirably. Now, anyone who has read my blog knows that I think we are extremely misguided in our approach to Russia. I for one think that Obama's first reaction, that both sides were at fault was correct. Unfortunately, he defered to his vice presidential nominee and to the media narrative about what went on in initially. Overall, I think this is a minor issue, our national security concerns are more wrapped up in the Middle East and far southwest Asia. I don't think that there'd be too much political damage if Obama were to stand by his previous statements. I think both candidates are wrong where they currently stand. McCain also did well in another area ceded by Obama, the surge. He ceded any way of winning that argument specifically when he said that it was working. It's hard to debate that point, mostly because the surge did what it was designed to do. Obama tried his best to say that the surge didn't solve the main problem (how are we going to ultimately win in Iraq rather than just curb the violence), but it was an uphill battle for him and ultimately McCain took that round as well.
As far as presentation was concerned, Obama looked much more presidential. He looked directly at McCain or into the camera lens, and the entire time he was confident. Many commentators remarked that he did not have too many "ahs" and "uhms", that he was more forceful, less professorial, more direct and assertive and I agree. McCain looked downright exhausted at the beginning of the debate and seemed to gather steam as the night went on. McCain was more cocky, at least in his disdain, had an oft repeated one-liner about Obama not understanding, but he also did not look at Obama. It was weird how he could be so confident that Barack was not in his league on foreign policy yet he was unconfident when it came to his actual demeanor. It was a good performance by both men although it was not a terribly exciting debate. The policy wonk in me enjoyed it, the other me was just happy that the Brewers are now a game up in the wild card. Again, I think that Obama won but he did not deliver a knockout blow or any real haymakers. Early polls indicate that independent voters thought that Obama won as well. Overall, I think his ability to lay out a broad plan and his pragamatism were reassuring. McCain, while he was able to win some rounds did not have any semblance of a central theme. I think that McCain needed a win, if not a clear one than at least a point one because he had the most to gain. All Obama needed to do was look presidential and he did that. Foreign policy was supposed to be McCain's best topic and he merely held Obama to a draw while losing on the economy. He'll need a great performance out of Palin (highly likely of course) or really hammer home on the domestic issues and the economy (not exactly his strong suit). I think McCain just let his best chance to catch Obama get away from him.
1 comment:
Post a Comment