i'm not avoiding the obvious post on the collapse of the mets, i'm just fulfilling my promise to promptly report on the debates as they happen. honest.
watched the whole of friday's debate live. i took no notes, because no average american does, and haven't and won't read any transcripts, because i want to remember the debate as an average american would.
from the outset, it was clear that moderator jim lehrer was intent on having a debate filled with banter and interaction between the candidates. the candidates, especially mccain, were not interested in that. (i know the candidates were not privy to the questions in advance, but if it was expressed to them in advance that this was the kind of debate lehrer was looking for, they intentionally made it difficult for him by opting for a standing-at-podium-style debate rather than a seated one.)
it was meant to be a foreign policy debate but because of the recent financial crisis and the bailout plan in congress at the time, the first 40 minutes of the 90 minute debate focused on the bailout plan and the struggling economy in general. with regards to the bailout plan, neither candidate cared to elaborate on details they preferred, but expressed faith that a good plan would come out of negotiations. when asked what they'd cut from their presidential wish lists to pay for the bailout, obama couldn't list a single thing. mccain talked about spending freezes and getting rid of pork barrel spending. the cuts he mentioned were cuts he planned on anyway, so didn't really answer the question he was asked.
each candidate tried to sneak in bits and pieces of their domestic policy into their answers on the financial crisis. energy independence seemed to be a hot topic, and a few mentions of reforming health care as a means to save money were made by obama. overall, i don't think i heard enough from either candidate that would sway me towards one or away from the other on the domestic side.
foreign policy was where the fireworks came out. the basics of the candidates' foreign policies are: obama- focus on afghanistan, let the iraqis run iraq, begin diplomatic proceedings with rogue states; mccain- focus on iraq, increase presence in afghanistan but not at the expense of the iraq theatre, no diplomacy with rogue states. mccain repeatedly name-dropped and place-dropped, playing his experience card while exploiting obama's lack thereof. i'm not sure just knowing the names of foreign leaders or saying you've been somewhere makes you more qualified, but it's hard to discredit 25 years of experience on the world stage.
as a debate, i thought obama's presence helped him early, but mccain fought back hard throughout the foreign policy section. since this post is more an evaluation of the debate itself than the content, my final evaluation is what i think the perception of the average american would be. scoring it like a boxing round, i've got mccain winning 10-9 on my card on the strength of his attacks towards the end.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Thanks Fink. You're definitely more "we report you decide" than FOX News. Hence, I'll keep reading.
I called it a draw. Probably only because I thought I started to see steam coming out of McCain's ears at one point and it scared me.
Oh, and I'm tagging you on my blog. And googs, too. Because I can't comment on his, but I know he'll read this.
My opinion: I think McCain clearly outshined Obama on these foreign policy isssues. I thought he had ample opportunity to go for the jugular, but failed. Nonetheless, his experience and knowledge in these areas clearly showed.
While I credit Obama for performing much better than I had anticipated, he surprised me with what I perceived as a lack of respect for Sen. McCain. Repeatedly referring to him as "John" and laughing in a mocking tone while McCain was speaking did not sit well with me at all.
I also didn't care for his reference to Pres. Bush as "your President". Disagree with his policies, but the man is still not only McCain's President. He's Obama's President too. Obama should have known better than to act so petty.
P.S. Mets stink.
see, i thought obama's address of mccain as "john" came off as collegial, not depreciating. and i don't think his laughing at mccain was any worse than mccain laughing at him. totally missed the "your president" thing, but agree- it's extremely petty.
oh, and agree with your second point also. mets stink.
Oh, I see. If calling someone by his or her first name is disrespectful, then what is it when someone calls someone else naive just because that disagrees with you about the merits of meeting with Iranian leaders without "preconditions"?
BTW, the word cop John Fink needs to explain to the commentariat and McCain himself that "condition" and "precondition" mean the same thing in this context and it ludicrous to invent a dumb word to replace a perfectly sufficient word.
Post a Comment