The first of the presidential debates is about to begin coming from the University of Mississippi. While the main focus of the debate was intended to be national security, I'd say that there's a slightly better than 99.9% chance that the economy will be a big issue tonight.
Unfortunately, while I'd rather be watching the debate live, I'm stuck volunteering at the school dance, so I'll likely watch it tomorrow and blog about it tomorrow as well. For those of you who will be watching it, please share your thoughts, opinions, and comments on the debate in the comments of this post.
Tuesday Late Night Open Thread
2 hours ago
6 comments:
Great idea, Doug.
It's on.
-Chronological record of my thoughts during the debate-
*Obama's response to the first question was very direct. Wished McCain had done the same.
*It was quite humorous to see Jim Lehrer trying to get the two candidates to debate directly with each other. (edit: Changed dramatically after ~15 mins in.)
*McCain's quote about vetoing against any spending bills sounds a lot like Bush's.
*LOL at McCain's giggles as Obama is talking.
*Weak opening for McCain, but he quickly hit his stride.
*Kudos to Mr. Lehrer for trying to get the real answer out of the candidates.
*I wish they would stop using the word "fundamental."
*I just love McCain's hand gestures.
*Reduce troops in Iraq and increase troops in Afghanistan? Go after Bin Laden, Pakistan, and Al Qaeda? Interesting ideas, Senator Obama.
*A very heartfelt moment as McCain recalls the origin of his bracelet. Obama's bracelet....not so much.
*Strong statements about Iran from McCain. Equally strong statements from Obama. However, I'm not going to touch this with a ten foot pole.
*I find it tasteless that Obama resorted to ad hominem attacks at McCain.
*I wonder what Kissinger is thinking as he is watching this debate.
*Where is President Dmitry Medvedev? Or is Putin still the president of Russia?
*Lugar? Here is Wikipedia's page on the Nunn-Lugar initiative
*Great closing statements from both Obama and McCain. Can't wait until the next one.
Kudos to Nelson for some apt observations. I also took live notes, but I'm going to try to focus my summary comments on observations I haven't seen pop up in the pundit analysis as much.
I was struck, for example, about how many times McCain invoked Patraeus. I counted at least 5, and Obama threw one in for good measure. I'm all for the Commander in Chief listening to career military officers and including them prominently in policy analysis, but something about this struck me as inappropriately political. When McCain actually invoked "the surge" directly, he did better.
I thought McCain good a good job of explaining why he criticized Obama earlier in the campaign for being willing to strike in Pakistan, now that we have in fact had some border skirmishes in Pakistan -- "you don't say it out loud." I wonder what he thinks about the recent strikes -- looks like a belated Osama bin Laden fishing expedition to me. I wish I could trust my government more than to even think that; I should be able to presume that they are acting on some especially good leads that just happened to come up a few months before the election. But I don't. What a shame.
And then McCain surrendered the point by claiming that Pakistan was a "failed State" when Musharraf took power. That's a stretch. Sharif was corrupt and Islamists had considerable reach both in the ISI and Waziristan, but they were hardly a "failed state" like international relations people call a country like Somalia. The Islamists still have considerable reach given the recent Mariott bombing and assassination of Benazir Bhutto, so if it was failed before Musharraf, it still is, and so Obama's point about "20th century dictators" holds up on substance if not on politics.
McCain gets the tactic v. strategy thing flat wrong, and Obama parried well on that.
McCain was condescending toward Obama IMO, an observation I made live which is already part of the media narrative. I'm not sure what Nelson is referring to as ad hominem.
I do agree with Nelson that the bracelet moment was not good for Obama. I also thought Obama didn't do a good job when invoking China as a global rival. The tone was off. Casting a wary eye is one thing, but it came off as a little fearmongering.
Unlike many recent Democratic candidates who ran away from the label of "liberal" as well as away from strongly articulating a progressive or liberal agenda for the country, Obama went right ahead and argued for redistributionary tax policies (including tax increases) as well as arguing for an engaged and multilateral diplomacy, even in the tricky area of Iran (a conversation that got bogged down in faux differences about summit meetings vs. lower level diplomatic engagement or agendas vs. preconditions.) Times have changed.
On individual debate points, McCain did plenty well, maybe even won. On articulating a vision for the future, I'd give the edge to Obama. That doesn't mean that McCain has no vision, but he didn't make that a tactical priority.
For example, McCain, other than during the tedious bit over earmarks, didn't offer much up in the way of change. "Change" -- from what? To what? McCain tried to compare Obama to Bush in terms of stubborness (ouch! - to Bush, but otherwise silly) and otherwise dissed the Republican party by admitting that admitting that being in power for a while changed the party for the worse. Smart move, but he's walking a political tightrope.
The "holding hearings" thing about Obama's subcommittee were totally bogus and Obama swatted them down as "inside Senate baseball" quite effectively. (It gets my wonk in a knot when pols misrepresent how government works to the people.)
I was glad to hear McCain repudiate torture. I wish he had done more two and three years ago, but that is one aspect of the next administration that will change for the better no matter who wins the election.
Politically, I think this was a win for Obama as a tie goes to the person in front and a tie goes to the supposedly too inexperienced candidate. If Obama lacks experience, he surely showed knowledge. Had Obama faltered, McCain's tone -- "Obama doesn't seem to understand" -- could have been effective. Instead, it might have backfired. Similarly, Obama's concessions to McCain ("I agree with John on that") looked weak at first, but might end up casting him as the more open-minded and judicious candidate.
Overall, as I was more inclined to be, I was more impressed with Obama. While there were a few points I cringed on (not wanting to lower corporate taxes was a glaring one), I thought he made some excellent points and beat McCain overall on policy.
I think it showed class that he didn't pounce on this, but during the earmarks portion, I wanted Obama to point to the fact that Mrs. Palin completely personifies what McCain is against.
On Iraq, I think McCain contradicted himself by telling Obama that it wasn't about 2003, but about now. But, Mr. McCain, why then does Obama's judgment on the surge matter if your poor judgement originally doesn't? I would take Obama not supporting a particular tactic any day over McCain who supporting the horrendous policy of the Iraq War.
I thought the debate brought out the defining characteristics that separate the two candidates. McCain is more sentimental in that he seems to act more out of emotion than reason and is far more readily swayed by his temper than Obama, who is more personable and keeps a cool head, which really helped him react well to McCain's accusations... fact indeed you misquoter.
On another note, I was very surprised than I didn't hear more policy from Obama. I expected the evasive politic talk from McCain as we saw in his acceptance of the Republican nomination speech. However, as Nelson and Doug have both stated, both candidates repeatedly failed to answer the question asked and settled for remaining on the same general topic. Therefore, in my mind, neither candidate "won" the debate; you have to play the game to win the prize.
On the other hand, where rebuttals were concerned, I felt Obama faired much better and came off as more presidential and willing to concede some points. "I agree with Senator McCain..." I felt that in some areas this weakened his attempt to distinguish himself from McCain. McCain's constant misquoting really got on my nerves, especially when Obama was trying to interrupt in order to correct him.
Did anyone else notice McCain blinked almost twice as much as Obama? Excessive blinking is usually a sign of nervousness, or a hint that a person is lying...curious.
I find that the more of this campaign I watch the angrier I get. A little into 10 minutes into the debate I found myself yelling at the TV. I found myself insulted by McCain in many ways, the first of which was his outright lying about some of Obama's plan's/past voting. Did he not realize the man was only several feet away? Did he not realize that this wasn't a political attack ad?
I agree with Rebecca that it got quite annoying. I also found it quite annoying when both candidates kept dodging the same question on this economic crisis shaping future policy and Jim Lehrer kept asking it multiple times.
Props to Jim Lehrer for trying to get honest answers, but his attempts are getting the candidates to debate directly with each other felt much like a flame war, with each candidate just refuting what the each had just said.
Overall I felt Obama's eloquence came through and I was left with the impression that he had done better. The moment I felt most insulted by John McCain was when he repeatedly called Obama's new plans (including universal healthcare, an issue i care quite a bit about) porkbarrel spending. I found myself with the feeling that John McCain didn't care about issues that didn't effect him, and that he had an overall condescending tone.
My favorite part of the debate by far waws when McCain called himself a "maverick" and Obama had to bite his lip to keep from laughing. I found this hilarious as i laughed as soon as he said it and I laugh whenever i see one of McCain's "Original Maverick" ads.
Overall I was impressed by Obama's eloquence and insulted by McCain's condescendance.
Post a Comment