John McCain persuasively won Presidential Debate No. 1, this evening in Oxford, Mississippi. Real differences emerged between McCain and Barack Obama in domestic and foreign policy arenas. While the first few minutes were disappointing, the debate format — skillfully and fairly managed by Moderator Jim Lehrer — ended up being a productive one.
Both men looked sharp and presidential but flubbed Jim Lehrer’s questions about the mortgage meltdown, each repeating silly platitudes about accountability and greed on Wall Street.
Americans who have followed this issue closely are now learning — thanks in part to posts on this blog — that the fundamental error that began the mortgage madness had less to do with Wall Street than with Bill Clinton’s White House.
Later, however, when the conversation moved on to tax policy and government spending — especially earmarks — the conversation got much more interesting. McCain staked out a clear policy direction favoring economic growth through tax cuts funded, in part, through cuts in government programs and spending. He also credibly laid claim to owning a significantly superior record in terms of reducing wasteful, corrupt earmarks. He did not specify which programs he would cut.
Obama, on the other hand, promises tax cuts to 95% of Americans, but promises tax raises to others. What is unclear is how 95% could receive a tax cut when upwards of 30% don’t pay taxes under current law. He also promised growth in some government programs.
On Iraq strategy, the difference continues to be stark: Obama insists on broadcasting a 16-month withdrawal timetable; McCain maintains — correctly, I might add — that telling the world you’ll leave the battlefield at a specific moment in time is foolish in the extreme. While you may keep a private timetable, no negotiator with any experience would countenance the broadcast of a timetable. This difference, perhaps more than any other, illustrates the vast experience deficit of Barack Obama.
On Iran, sparks fly. Obama insists that meetings between the U.S. President and Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — who is now in New York advocating the predicting the destruction of Israel — should be held “without preconditions.” McCain pans this approach, saying, “It isn’t just naive, it’s dangerous.” Obama says Henry Kissinger agrees with Obama.
McCain says, “I’ve known Kissinger for 35 years. There’s no way he would agree that the President should sit down with Ahmadinejad. Lower level talks are possible, but not at the level of the President because such talks would confer legitimacy on Ahmadinejad.
On Russia, Obama wants to claim a hawkish position on Russia’s invasion of Georgia. Obama attempts to associate McCain with GW’s now notorious comment about having looked into Vlad Putin’s eyes and seeing his soul. Bad move. McCain: “I looked into Putin’s eyes and I saw three letters — KGB.”
I would say that both men have scored points in the debate, so far, now at 10:25 p.m. EDT. However, I give the edge to McCain. He has edged Obama on taxes, spending, earmarks and foreign policy. While Obama presents himself well, he hasn’t scored in a decisive way on any single point. His insistence on pronouncing “Pakistan” as “Pahkistan” while technically correct will be a put off to a significant segment of the population.
McCain closed convincingly with a focus on his superiority in judgment and experience. Can’t honestly remember at the moment how Obama closed.
{ 20 comments… read them below or add one }
“Obama had a smooth delivery and no major slip ups. It seemed that he got the points out he wanted to make. He had the worst off-question appearance though. When McCain spoke he smirked, appeared shook a couple of times and kept looking out in the audience and making hand signals to someone out there. What was up with that?” A reader comment from http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/sep/26/mccain_obama_argue_over_war_taxes_first_debate/
I caught this several times. He looked off-stage or at least off-screen several times to his left, once giving a thumbs-up, another time raising a finger in the way we do when we signal, “Yes, I got that message, give me a minute and I’ll get to it.” There was obvious communication between him and someone coaching him. At these points, he was also clearly not listening to the points McCain was making.
Obama is not his own man. When he was in the townhall meeting 10 days or so ago, and lost his connection to the prompter in his ear — he was completely rattled and could hardly talk for several minutes. You may have seen that video. If not, you should. See “Eloquent Obama Speechless?” http://iperceive.net/page/3/
McCain won. Obama supporters of course claim victory, and Charles Krauthammer called it a draw, and therefore an Obama victory. But Wm. Kristol, Rudy Giuliani and over 80% of those who participated in a Fox News poll (which was still open as I left the television set) were calling it a McCain victory. As Haley Barbour observed, he had watched these debates for decades and had not seen that big a wipe-out (with one possible exception noted.)
Yeah, what the heck was going on with the hand signals? The grimaces were bad enough, but the signals demand explanation. Who’s pulling his strings?
I was going to ask about the facial and hand signals too! It was clear that Obama was being coached by someone to his left, literally (might not be possible politically).
Also, Obama reminded me of a four year old child competing for attention against his two year old sibling. Every time McCain was making a point, Obama interrupted at least with his body language, if not audibly, drawing the attention back to himself, distracting from McCain. Nearly every time McCain spoke, Obama interrupted, nearly at the start of the thought. Between communicating with his coach in the left wing and speaking before McCain had said what he was going to say, Obama did not listen to McCain for most of the night…not much of a debating strategy.
I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised. Although I know McCain is the better man, Obama is typically the better performer. I sat down to watch this dreading the outcome. But, McCain came through. He was relaxed, once he got his nerves out at the beginning. He cracked some jokes…one even drawing audible laughter from the audience who wasn’t supposed to laugh or applaud. On the other had, Obama looked tense. He looked like someone who is anxious to finish a conversation and has their mind elsewhere.
Going back to the hand signals…what was that? I can’t believe that Obama was lip reading, yet he was nodding in agreement and giving confirming hand signals to someone out there. Was it sort of like the catcher throwing hand signals to the pitcher? Did he have his talking lines memorized according to hand signals, since he is incapable of thinking and speaking without a teleprompter or wireless speaker in his ear?
NBC is claiming that Eisenhower did not write a second letter resigning. Anyone know what that is about?
I look into Obama’s eyes and see ACORN.
You know, even as a kid, acorns left a bitter taste in my mouth! (My teacher told us that Indians ate them, so I wanted to try it.)
I just had another thought…anyone else notice Obama say “if we fix it” then corrent himself to to say “when we fix it”. Is that an indicator that Obama doesn’t have faith in their ability to fix the economy?
Obama is more professional and seems to be a better spokesperson for America. McCain is just a figurehead for Corporate America. Do people really HONESTLY believe America is better off with a Republican who will act like a “George Bush” type figurehead? Sure Obama doesn’t have the greatest record with foreign policy it’s obvious that he is the kind of person who wants to consolidate americas position in the world. And trust me, outside of America a lot of nations dont think very highly of the road America is going down…
“John McCain persuasively won Presidential Debate No. 1″
Ha ha ha ha!
Sorry,
You would tell us if you didn’t think so? Now if what Mcwalkingstick was saying about the economy is actually true, than I would agree with you.
Well the Republican husband changed his vote to Obama last night. Doesn’t seem McCain won here!
Pliggy —
You know I would say so if I thought McCain had done poorly. I’ve had no hesitation criticizing McCain on this blog when I’ve thought he deserved it. Your cynicism is running away with your head on this one. After sleeping on it and reading the above comments, I’m even more persuaded that McCain showed himself last night far better prepared for the Oval Office than Mr. Obama.
And there were absolutely no preconcieved notions before you watched the debate, right?
Well, even I agree with McWalkingsticks rhetorical policies that he stated last night, but as far as eloquence or persona or even confidence I did not see a “winner” of a debate. Mcwalkingstick clearly misrepresented BO, which is dishonest in my book, just as much as BO misrepresented McWalkingstick.
McWalkingstick? If you have something of subtance to say about him, why do you resort to 4th grade playground name games?
Sorry Cosmo’s even Pliggy has a nickname
txmom77 –
No thinking Republican could have switched to Obama on the basis of last night’s debate. Maybe your hubby isn’t thinking or maybe he’s not really a Republican. Come to think of it, are you sure you’re really married?
Pliggy { 09.27.08 at 11:56 am } “And there were absolutely no preconcieved notions before you watched the debate, right?”
As for myself, I did have preconceived notions…I expected McCain to flop. I didn’t like McCain at the start of the campaign. Had I’d gotten out of it what I expected to see, McCain would have lost last night. I was pleasantly surprised to see him perform so well. I think he was relaxed. I had expected him to be rigid. He was funny. There were a number of times I wish the audience was allowed to laugh, and once that I was pleased that they did laugh, despite the no laughing/no applauding rule. I think people got to see a side of McCain that had not been exposed prior to last night, a side I had never seen. I expected to see Obama perform well (as he normally does–perform being a key word), but instead he was rigid. He looked more nervous than McCain, which is not at all what I expected to see. So, yes, for me there were preconceived expectations, but what I expected isn’t at all what I got.
Kiran,
Yes, people really do believe America will be better off with McCain as president. Strange, ain’t it, that people will prefer a man who will lower taxes, for everyone, and make sure that America’s enemy’s don’t get nuclear weapons, compared to a Marxist who wants to redistribute people’s wealth. Odd, huh? You are also right about Obama being a better spokesperson for America, hence ” uh…uh…wait a minute here I…I can’t hear myself”.And it’s also true he is very professional, that is a professional puppet. Which makes one wonder, who is the puppetier?
Kirin wrote: “And trust me, outside of America a lot of nations dont think very highly of the road America is going down…”
Some of us believe in doing what is right, despite what the media tells us those in other countries may think of us. It’s called integrity. Liberals take public polls to decide what road to go down; conservatives act with integrity.
I’m confused. I mention that McCain was the only intellectual on the stage and that he mopped the floor intellectually with Obama. I mention a few other things, like Obama’s lack of qualifications, but then on the other hand, note that McCain is a member of the Counsel on Foreign Relations, and thus an emissary of evil. And my comment get’s censored. Let’s see if this one does too…
Joey,
You commented that on “McCain vs. Obama: Clear choice on style & substance”.
Oh duh. Must be losing my mind.