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.

Palin for VP: Brazen or Brash...

Kudos to the McCain camp for keeping the true VP nominee under such tight wraps; another kudos for going against the grain of predictability and thinking outside the box. McCain's decision to select Palin is an interesting one, but I think a smart one. While things can always backfire, the sheer shock factor, coupled with the momentum of curiosity for an unknown governor (and a woman no less), will force the Obama camp to relinquish the spotlight over the coming weeks. If done smartly, this could be a real opportunity for McCain and Co. to capitalize on the publicity and connect with voters with a relevant message.

Now, don't get me wrong - I get some of the anti-Palin sentiment. Some may be inclined to wave a finger and tsk-tsk Palin's nomination, but here's why they should pull back the trigger finger just yet and give a thumbs up:

Briefly side-stepping the fact that she is a woman...
- Palin has solid conservative credentials - something we Repubs knew McCain would need in a running-mate given some of his more 'left-of-center' conservative politics.

- While relatively inexperienced in the core political arena (a quality well-served for baby 'Bama and former President Clinton), Palin is young and still brings more relevant experience (of the executive nature) to the table. Granted, the state of Alaska only has 10 residents but....Palin has also served two terms as mayor and two more as city-councilman. Bottom line: she's not a newbie to the process nor the 'business' of politics. During her political tenure, unlike the democratic President-elect, Palin has actually done things.

On this note, i found it rather amusing, and a downright contradiction, that the Obama camp issued this response upon hearing of Palin's pseduo-nomination:

"Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency"

Anyone else see the irony in that? Right. And so putting a junior senator with now three years of legislative experience, zero legislative accomplishments, and zero foreign policy experience to speak of in the presidency, says what exactly.....His role on the senate foreign relations committee? laughable. I also found interesting the very carefully chosen words "former mayor" - given the fact Palin has been governor since 2006. Obviously intended to steer attention away from her executive experience. How droll. Lefties...

Moving on...

- Palin carries the "anti-stain" of the stereotypical politician; and for the average Joe (or Josephina), has a niche claim that every politician drools over - she is more relatable to the average American. Let's be honest, when most people think of Alaska Northern Exposure and 'homely' come to mind. It's earthy and hard-working, straight-talking, outdoorsy peeps with close relationships and close familial ties. True or not true, perception is power; perception wins elections. Most loyal Republicans aren't going to go left - regardless of whose on the ticket; and Palin's background, combined with her more mainstream libertarian conservatism, just might be what the party needs to reign-in moderate and conservative democrats.

- Corruption and DC politics was a stain on the Bush Administration and his Republican-majority congress. McCain's efforts to vilify those attributes are strengthened in Palin with her efforts to weed out corruption and wipe-out flagrant misuse of government spending in her own state. I read somewhere that she sold a corporate jet on e-Bay for something shy of $3 million to raise money without raising taxes. I'm all for that. She's innovative and thinks outside the box.

Here's some nice propaganda for you on Palin's conservative nature and political POV:

"She is a throwback to the cowboy individualism of Barry Goldwater, a nod to the fiscal policies of Ronald Reagan, and a flag-bearer for the common-sense pragmatism of ordinary working parents everywhere."

- Palin is a union member as is her husband. Though a departure from standard Republican ideals - which generally look on unions with a sense of disregard and loathing (and let's face it, why wouldn't you really...) - having a union-family will resonate more with voters in swing states like MI and IA, heavy in the unions. A side note...Palin also displays the more uncharacteristic qualities of labor unionites, typically reserved for, well... us respectable non-unionites! She's hard-working and yes, actually works. Guess it beats taking an eight hour lunch break cleverly disguised as an eight hour work day...

- Palin, like McCain, talks in plain-speak and has the nerve to bite back which could serve well against a competitor like Biden, known for his manner of directness and occasional tact-lessness.

Now, given the fact that Palin is a woman...
- I don't believe that simply having a woman on the ticket will reign in female voters other than extreme feminists (that's just naive), but a woman or minority on the Republican ticket is an affront to the leftist (and ok, mainstream) perception that Republicans only elect stuffy, old, white-collared, affluent men. And Palin counters any edge Obama has in being a minority. From a diversity standpoint, her nomination will move Republicans in a new direction and put Republicans and Democrats on even keel during the elections. Bravo McCain and Co!

Yes, the fact that she is an unknown will make her vulnerable to media scrutiny and yes, the potential impacts could implode McCain's campaign with the elections only a few short months away. But the typical "what's in your closet" political hoopla can be muted with a smart strategy, open communication and plain-speak: an approach that has served McCain well in recent months with gaining traction among Democrats and swing voters.

Right now, people are very curious, and McCain and Co are well suited to take advantage, spread their message, and drive momentum. Come November, I think they'll prove to be a formidable duo against Obama and Biden.