September 27, 2008

Round 1 of the Presidential Debates

I watched the debate and I’ve read through the transcripts. The result: McCain came out ahead. It may not have been out of the ballpark, but he landed enough distance hits to potentially get a lift in the numbers (or good momentum in prep for the VP 10/2 debate).

Here’s the breakdown: McCain kicked Obama’s ass on every issue but the bailout package. On this he broke even – maybe a little under even but generally speaking, McCain responded to Obama’s criticisms pretty well and even put Obama on the defensive during the first 30 minutes on an issue that is supposed to be Obama’s trump card in this race.

What needed to happen tonight from both sides: Obama needed to show voters that he is the best choice to be commander-in-chief in foreign policy and affairs. McCain had a much bigger fence to jump: he needed to show Obama as the naive student of political foreign affairs, he needed to continue to separate himself from the last 8 years of the Bush administration, and he needed to be able to respond to the economic bailout issue without sinking himself because even though this debate was supposed to focus on foreign policy, we all knew questions regarding the bailout were going to be raised.


The Economy
The debate started with talks on the economy and particularly the $700 billion bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. As for whether or not each candidate would support the proposed recovery plan, fact is: responses from both candidates sucked since they each avoided an answer entirely other than to say “well I think I would.”

Baaaah little sheep.

But here was the key lead question [paraphrasing]: “As President, what are you going to have to give-up in order to pay for the exorbitant costs of the bailout recovery plan?”

McCain focused on cutting government spending to help fan the cost of the bailout package while trying to put an emphasis on the fact that cutting ~$18billion in earmarks and pork spending impacts not only direct funding for wasteful government programs but also corrupt spending and activity across government agencies that go unaccounted for. Earmarks represent only 2-3% of the total deficit and $18 billion plus give or take another $XX billion obviously won’t cover the $700 billion atop the planned tax cuts. I would have liked to hear McCain site 1-2 additional examples beyond simply earmarking and government corruption and think McCain would have positioned himself much better overall given the strong voter focus on the economy. But, he did suggest a spending freeze which, though a fail-safe answer, is still an entirely reasonable proposition.

Having said that, Obama in my opinion missed the mark entirely. Before I elaborate, I’ll say this: it’s important when listening to both candidates that you stay focused on ‘connecting all the dots’ of what they say and how they respond to the question. It’s obvious (and most of us already recognized this) – Senator Obama undeniably is born of the gift of gab. And after watching the first presidential debate and hearing his responses and reading (and re-reading) the transcripts – I realized how easy it is to forget about connecting all the dots when you’re listening to him speak. Particularly because everything is intelligently worded and bundled into a pretty, seemingly non-politicians package. But the reality as I see it – most of his dots when you lay them out just don’t connect.

Obama mentioned that there obviously would be areas of his plan that would have to be delayed or simply wouldn’t get done but there are some things that simply must be done. An interesting way to avoid responding to the question but in light of his response, I would have liked Lehrer to ask the Senator how he plans to pay for the recovery plan while he continues advocating the provision of tax cuts to 95% of American families, all the while investing in alternative energy: wind, solar, biodesel, etc., all the while pouring out an additional $800 billion into new social programs, and all the while providing healthcare coverage to every American – and no doubt – every non-American…I think he also mentioned education but that probably falls under one of the $800 billion worth of more government social programs…(a top the $xx billion in completely worthless social programs that already exist).

Supposedly, where there are line items that cannot be done as a result of the bailout costs (still not sure what these are), tax bails, alternative energy, healthcare, and social programs to help the “middle class” are all the things that must be done.

So, OK…when you’re suffering through terrible economic woes, this is all the fluff you want to hear and need to hear. But when you add up both economic plans, sure…McCain falls short a bit but at least he stated an economic freeze which is far more realistic than Obama’s “new math” economic plan all verbally dialed up into a fools package.

Pretty little ducks all laid out in a row. Not.


Foreign Policy
Here’s undoubtedly where McCain kicked Obama’s proverbial ass. Obama did a good job of shedding light on the fact that he is intelligent and fairly well versed on some of the issues; but more importantly McCain shed a lot more light on Obamas fundamental inability to connect all the little dots in order to understand the broader picture – a necessity for developing and supporting strategic and tactical initiatives. McCain whipped him on the discussion regarding our strategy in Afghanistan with respect to success in Iraq and disbursement of troop volume in Iraq; he consistently (and successfully) called out Obama’s lack of understanding of the domino effect between the issues in the Middle East; he successfully portrayed Obama’s understandings as being at best, naïve; and McCain consistently put Obama on the defensive on all manners of foreign policy that were raised during the debate to include Russia, Iran and North Korea.

On this, it was critically important for Obama to show voters that he is the man to lead the country in foreign affairs.

And he failed.

For me, the win for round 1 goes to McCain. Not necessarily by a mile but at least by a couple of stretches.

14 comments:

Dan said...

I give the debate to Obama by a nose. It was a good performance from both candidates that should not have changed opinions of partisans (who probably feel that their candidate won). But I think Obama did a better job of achieving his goals and reassuring undecided voters.

Dan said...

BTW, funny thing about those millions of dollars earmarked for studying bear DNA: McCain voted for that bill!

Deanna Shaw said...

RE: "the bear bill" I'd have to research it further(and I doubt I will) but my understanding is that the bear DNA testing was not "the bill" but rather pork spending added to "a bill" - one that McCain felt needed to be passed. My guess is that he was lamenting the fact that those kinds of ridiculous add-ons are frequently attached to more important bills.

Dan said...

You're right about the earmark being an add-on to a bill McCain supported, and you are probably correct that McCain regrets that it was there. That was not, however, what McCain stated, and such a sentiment is inconsistent with his portrayal of other legislation (such as the two bills on troop funding).

Deanna Shaw said...

I don't think it's inconsistent at all but I think he could do a better job of 'saying what he means' so he can avoid people who come back with 'but he voted for that bill!"

He could position it this way: "Let's talk about ridiculous spending like the bear DNA testing. It was pork that was added to an important piece of legislation (he should briefly state the importance of the final bill). Sometimes as a senator, there's little wiggle room and you have to concede the ridiculous to get bigger things accomplished. As President that nonsense just won't fly. The important legislation will pass but without the pork."

This conveys the same message, is consistent with his overall views on pork spending but it's more clear.

Same thing goes for bills he voted against. If there are measures in there that just don't make sense or harmful and it's necessary to vote down the final bill - he should state that. He has a lot of those situations but he doesn't communicate that clearly and voters should know. Ultimately I think they'd feel better about his voting record on some key issues (i.e., troop funding, voting against key Bush tax cuts a few years back, etc.).

Dan said...

That is a very good description of what goes on with congressional bills and the choices that members of Congress face. But it also describes the McCain's inconsistency. He routinely characterizes Obama positions as for or against issues based on votes that that are often tangentially related to the issue McCain is describing.

Deanna Shaw said...

well considering baby 'bama only started taking a position on anything just 2-3 years ago, I'd hardly call McCain's attacks an inconsistency but possibly subjective due to 'lack of relevant data'.

;-)

Dan said...

Huh??? That makes no sense; you're starting to sound like Ms. Palin!

Deanna Shaw said...

McCain has a very long voting record, Obama barely has a voting record. It's not inconsistent for McCain to characterize some of Obama's voting decisions because Obama doesn't have the history of voting consistently one way or the other.

That's my point.

Dan said...

The length of Obama's record is certainly shorter; the consistency of his positions is a debatable point. But both are non-sequiturs. The point -- which you aptly described -- is that characterizing a vote (or position) based on a vote on another issue is nonsense.

Dan said...

But back to the question of "who won?"

It looks like undecideds reacted much better to Obama according to an LA Times/Bloomberg poll (see update).

Anonymous said...

I think McCain did a better job but he needed to be much stronger on the economy and with how he addressed the issues. The reality is that Barack Obama is just a much better orator than McCain and that combined with having broad knowledge of some of the issues, he sounds more fluid. McCain can't win a competition on speaking skills so he needs to just nail the questions with specific answers, then "expound." He did a much better job of this on the second half of the debate but he needs to be more consistent. You mention Barack's short voting record too and I think McCain should take advantage of that. Just because a guy takes a stand on an issue recently doesn't mean hes forward thinking and can think through situations. McCain should play Barack as running the voter-tide to win an election.

Dan said...

Slightly of topic...
You took the time to watch the debate and read the transcripts? Why?

Yes, I do that, but I'm middle-aged, married, with a wife in school; what else am I going to do? You're single, young, and beautiful. Shouldn't you be spending time dancing to techno music with other young, beautiful people and doing something with glow sticks?

Deanna Shaw said...

I wasn't able to watch the debate live and had to catch it online the following day; the transcripts were provided with the video-stream and, I had to reread sections of the transcript in order to write my blog entry. I hardly think 3 hours is egregious.

And,....you know I'm a politics junky anyway~!