Quick thoughts on the debate
I thought both gentlemen were relatively articulate. McCain is not a great speaker, but I thought he did well speaking-wise. I thought both gentlemen were relatively articulate. McCain is not a great speaker, but I thought he did well speaking-wise. Obama cut out a lot of the "ums" that some times plague his speeches.
The candidates did appease their base, but I think Obama might have resonated a little stronger with independents and undecideds. If these folks hadn’t seen Obama speak before, I think he showed a real grasp of issues, especially foreign policy. If there were people who thought he was “naive,” or “doesn’t understand” (as McCain put it), they clearly saw that was not the case. Additionally, Obama laid out more plans than McCain. For every topic, he said, “This is what I would do.” McCain repeated the same sound bites over and over.
Obama killed the Pakistan discussion and he pretty much knocked the foreign policy discussion out of the park. While Obama continued to explain in nuance and talk about what he would do, McCain just kept repeating “you would negotiate with terrorists!” McCain couldn’t expand on any thoughts or flesh out his statements. He merely repeated the same talking points over and over. I can’t believe McCain kept insisting Obama was stubborn and wouldn’t admit the surge was working. Um, John, where were you 20 minutes ago when he said the surge was working? I hope these obvious miscues hurt him.
The one mistake of Obama’s I noticed right away was when Leher asked him what programs he would cut because of the financial crisis. Instead of answering the question, he talked about his priorities. Finally, after McCain talked, Obama did mention reducing subsides and ending the war in Iraq. But it was too late. His dodge allowed critics to spew the BS about being a waffler and never answering the question.
Another difference that was very apparent is McCain’s black and white, right and wrong ideology versus Obama’s deeper nuanced thinking. I know some people like that trait in McCain and dislike Obama’s long complicated explanations, but I certainly don’t. McCain is very similar to Bush in this regard. Issues are complicated, not simple. All issues are tinged in shade of gray. Anyway, I thought this difference really stood out in the foreign policy debate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think Obama blew McCain out of the water on the debate. Over and over again, McCain could only refer to what now seems like the distant past. The choice between the two men never seemed more clear; pursue the failed policies of the past and keep floundering with old, worn out ideas, or move toward a future with new ways of looking at old problems and the problems that have yet to unfold. I kept having the feeling that I was listening to my great uncle talk about the difference between pork prices in Canada and the U.S. every time McCain started down the road of Ronald Regan or Vietnam. And while I think we must understand history, I don't believe that our history must dictate our future. One advantage that the United States has over many other countries is our lack of history (I am thinking particularly of European nations and the issues of nationalism). We are not bound by the old.
For me, the most brilliant part of the debate did not occur until after the debate ended when Katie Couric said that she had called Kissinger (a man who most certainly should stay in our past and not be influencing our future) to clarify the meaning of his comments about meeting with leaders of Iran and presumably other Axis of Evil nations (which may include Spain!) without preconditions, and it turns out Obama was right. So, while McLame has been friends with Kissinger for 35 years, he is either not paying attention to one of his advisors, or worse, he can't remember what the man has said. Kudos to Couric for actually doing what the media should be doing!
What struck me was the number of times Mclame invoked the spectre of Reagan. It made me wonder how Reagan's legacy is these days. Do people think Ronnie restored American pride, or do they think he was a crazy coot who probably should be in charge of something less important?
Post a Comment