The Debates

after both the first presidential debate and first (and only) VP debate, a lot of people asked me what i thought of them.

it’s true that i watched both of them, but i didn’t really prepare to say anything afterwards to people who asked for my opinion — i just kinda absorbed both of them for what they were, which i thought were glorified press conferences. i knew how both candidates stood on most (but not all) of the issues … and the issues are what matter to me, not body language or facial expressions or other such things.  these extra things are important to me only because they are important to others — in other words, i want obama to do well on non-issue things only because it’s important to *other* people and could affect *their* vote, which would affect whether or not my candidate wins.

with the pervasiveness of opinions and spin on the news — oftentimes masquerading as news itself — i think voters are immediately bombarded by people telling them how they *should* think and feel following one of these events. in a 90-minute debate, a lot can happen that might resonate with voters, but i also think a lot of those specific feelings and opinions can be lost in the noise that inevitably arrives afterwards.

therefore — for the second debate, i had a pad of paper and a pen handy throughout the whole time, and jotted down ideas that came to me throughout the 90 minutes. i think capturing these things as they happened, as a first impression, is important so as to maintain one’s individual perceptions while wading through the post-debate analysis from the pundits and spin doctors.  i’d recommend that other people do it next time something like this rolls around, since it helps keep your thoughts in order.

i don’t have that paper with me now … maybe i’ll remember to have it on me when i’m near a computer so i can share it with everyone. however, i do have my notes from the *third* and final debate with me, so here’s what i thought of during the debate:

before it even began, i was really hoping that the candidates would veer away from their well-worn talking points as much as humanly possible throughout this thing.  if i want to hear a stump speech, i’ll go to youtube and look up what the candidates say at their rallies.  the debates provide a rare opportunity for obama and mccain to talk to an immensely large audience as real people, and not as Candidates For President.  in the previous two debates, i thought obama had done an average job with this, while mccain had done poorly.

mccain repeats himself a lot.  this bothers me on a personal level because it reminds me of my parents when they would get into one of their countless stupid arguments — my dad would harp on my mom for interrupting him (which she did), my mom would harp on my dad for acting like she’s stupid (which he did), and round and round we’d go — for two godless hours, with no real progress being made by anyone.  last night (as just one example), mccain called voters “hurting” and “angry” (but not “bitter,” of course) about a dozen times in just his first response alone.  when he does this, i get the impression he’s either filling up time so as to get to two minutes (it reflects poorly on a candidate if he or she doesn’t use up the full allotted time) or is stalling because he can’t think of what to say.  either way, it’s not good for him.

the “Joe The Plumber” exchange, as well as him making a triumphant return later in the debate, was just weird.  i fucking hate it when buzz words like “Joe Six-Pack” and “Soccer/Hockey Moms” are used more than once in a speech … and so, of course, we now have “Joe The Plumber.”  there is such an impetus for today’s candidates to appear down-to-earth that these terms get thrown around more than anything.  while i do think it’s important for candidates to have their feet on the ground, let’s be honest here: both of these guys are running for President of the United States — you don’t do that unless you think you’re pretty damn smart and capable and basically an all-around better person than most people.  i think jon stewart said it best — when everyone was throwing the “elitist” label around around as a bad thing — when he said: “doesn’t ‘elite’ mean ‘good?’” and “i don’t want my president to be like me … i want him to be embarassingly superior to me!”  right on, jon.

whenever mccain calls out obama for raising taxes (on the wealthiest 5%, although mccain never includes that caveat), obama should hit him right back and say that mccain — by campaigning against rolling back the bush tax cuts — is de facto *opposed* to investing in alternate energy sources, early childhood education, tax cuts for the poor, and so on … in other words, all those things that the upper-class tax hikes would enable.  i thought obama scored points when he did just this and referenced mccain’s support for government subsidies into autism research (an issue near and dear to mccain’s running mate, and an issue he had just mentioned about 30 second earlier) — he flat-out said that in order to do so it would take a lot of money … and where’s it gonna come from, john?

mccain’s jokes — throughout all the debates — have just fallen flat.  now, i’m not looking for a real huckster to be running our country anyway, but it doesn’t help mccain when this happens.  it works at partisan rallies because your supporters will laugh whenever you want them to laugh, but it doesn’t work here unless it’s actally funny.

i still do not think mccain has adequately explained this “spending freeze” he talks about, and he’s now mentioned it several times.  what exactly would be frozen?  he mentions the programs that *wouldn’t* be frozen as “defense, veteran’s care, and a few other vital programs.”  well, what are those few other vital programs, john?  this strikes me as exceedingly important, should he actually be elected.

mccain actually scored points when he said that he *wasn’t* bush, and that if obama wanted to run against bush he should’ve done it four or eight years ago.  the farther mccain distances himself from bush at this point, the better for him.  throughout this campaign he has allowed obama to completely tie him to bush, which has done irreparable damage to mccain’s chances in this election.  obama shot back by saying mccain supports bush on a lot of the important issues, but mccain needs to repeat this over and over and over again if he wants to even stand a chance in a few weeks.

obama simultaneously stole the “maverick” spotlight from mccain while also answering mccain’s direct challenge when he mentioned those times in which he’s gone against democratic partisan party lines (clean coal, trial lawyer’s cases, charter schools).  one thing hurting obama, if anything, is that he’s seen as too liberal (not a problem for me, obviously, but possibly giving pause to some other people), and so any evidence as to when he “hasn’t been a democrat” should help, since the left will vote for him no matter what.  i thought obama could’ve also brought up FISA or that pro-gun supreme court verdict in DC, which he supported.

when schieffer called on both candidates to basically say to their opponent’s face what has been said about them by their respective campaigns (if not themselves), both of them played defense and called out the other one for their attacks without mentioning their own, with the exception of mccain bringing up ayers (however, mccain neither accused obama to his face of “palling around with terrorists,” but neither did he address — positively nor negatively — palin’s statement in which she said the same thing).  i think this is where obama should’ve brought up the most egregious, unfounded attack by mccain’s campaign: when they falsely accused obama of supporting sex ed for kindergartners (and “learning about sex before learning to read,” blah blah blah).  granted, you don’t want to stir up now-dead semi-controversies, but i think drawing attention to that abomination of a campaign tactic, right out of the rove playbook, would’ve painted mccain into a corner.  also — i’ve heard several right-wing pundits of accusing obama of running the most negative campaign in history.  can anyone provide me with the evidence they’re using to support this?  everything i’ve heard, from both liberal and nonpartisan sources alike, says the same thing about mccain.

along these lines, i think obama did a good job of explaining his negligible connection to bill ayers, as well as to the ACORN voter registration scandal.  he said that both he and ayers served on the board of a charity foundation run by one of *reagan’s* friends, and he maintained that he has no official connection with ACORN (btw – i’ll go more into ACORN and what i think it means later).

obama does this thing whenever he thinks mccain is lying or distorting the truth — he gets this great big smile on his face and looks down at his notes.  mccain also smiles sometimes, but with him it looks really creepy and awkward and not genuine.  with obama, you can just tell he’s thinking to himself, “oh, you lying sack of shit … so this is the way you want to play, huh?  alright, bring it.  i’m gonna tear you a new one soon as i get to speak again, you dumb fuck.”  the whole time he’s thinking this, he looks so calm … almost amused, as if he’s balancing his disdain for mccain with his desire to appear civil.  this is one of many ways in which the television format favors obama over mccain (a la kennedy vs nixon).

on the flip side of this, mccain simply does not conduct himself well in these situations when obama says something with which he doesn’t agree.  normally i wouldn’t think this was so important, but since everyone decided that al gore’s sighing was so damn important in 2000 against that idiot bush, i guess this is important now, too.  mccain routinely does worse stuff than sighing (at sigh-appropriate things, like gore did) — he raises his eyebrows in disbelief, audibly inhales and exhales so loudly that i can hear it through his mic, stares in disbelief at obama, does the creepy smile thing right into the camera.  like i said, i think this is all trivial … but my opinion doesn’t matter on this, now does it?

obama’s single best line of the night was this:

McCain:  “Senator Obama, I’d still like to know what that fine is going to be [that you'll impose on Joe The Plumber who might not provide health insurance to his employees that work within his small business] !”

Obama:  (later, during his response, speaking into the camera) “And I’m happy to talk to you too, Joe, if you’re out there.  Uh, here’s your fine: Zero!” (makes a “zero” sign with his fingers)

McCain:  (staring in disbelief) “Zero?!”

Obama:  “Zero.”

when asked about their respective running mates, obama talked about biden’s experience with foreign leaders and knowledge of the ways of washington as assets, which I believe is true.  mccain talked about palin helping to root out the cronyism and entrenched politicians of washington — but obama didn’t use this opportunity to point out that mccain’s been in washington for twenty years.  this points to a challenge for both sides: obama’s running as the fresh face in politics, railing against the establishment, and yet he chose a six-term senator (who’s served longer than mccain) as VP.  mccain’s running as the experienced candidate, saying obama is too ricky, and yet he chose a first-term governor (who’s served less than obama) as VP.  each of their running mates appears to have a lot in common as their opponent in this regard.  the advantage for obama, however, is that biden’s role is as an adviser, which leaves obama and his good judgement at the top to make the final decision (and lemme just say that i think biden’s a great choice for VP).  palin’s role is to … shore up the evangelical christian and far-right vote, who had never embraced mccain.  and what happens once they’re elected?  her role is to … um … run on her own in 2016?

obama says he’s for offshore drilling (as one part of a larger energy plan), but mccain continues to hammer him on this by resorting to sound bytes (“we have to drill here, and we have to drill now”).  that’s a lot more digestible to viewers than obama’s nuanced answer.  now, i believe that obama is also supportive of “having to drill here, and having to drill now,” but he’s letting mccain dominate this issue (an issue which seems so important to the GOP that it’s turned into a mantra) and get a few points in there.  i obviously think obama’s *idea* and *plan* for energy is better, but i think he’s allowing mccain to project the image that obama is unilaterally against offshore drilling.  “Drill, Baby, Drill,” is this election’s “Four Legs Good, Two Legs Baaaaaaaaad” — it is designed by, and for, idiots to distract them from what’s really important and stifle meaningful discussion … but that doesn’t mean it isn’t effective.  in fact, i think that means it *is* effective.

i thought obama attacked mccain’s health care “plan” very well, as well as he defended his own.  mccain resorted to talking points that we’ve heard a thousand times before.

i gotta give him credit — mccain scored points with his “Senator Government” “slip” (i say “slip” and not just slip — without quotes — since that may very well have been planned … although if that *was* planned, he did a good job to make it sound like an extemporaneous, Freudian slip).  if you’re the kind of person who thinks government = bad, you would probably eat this up.  granted, you’re also probably not reading my blog, but still … this was probably the one funny thing mccain did (and notice there was no creepy smile afterwards).  i’m sure conservatives are going to call him “Senator Government” from now until election day … although, after that, having to call him “President Government” doesn’t have quite the same feel to it.

abortion came up, and i guess i shouldn’t be surprised.  as i’ve said, i don’t think presidential elections should be decided on this issue, regardless of how you feel, but that’s just me.  i think obama did a good job of refuting mccain’s two criticisms: when mccain said obama opposed a bill in illinois that called for lifesaving treatment for a baby of a failed abortion, obama calmly responded that such a law elready existed on the books, and that he was joined by pro-choice democrats, republicans, and doctors in opposing the new bill since it limited roe v. wade.  mccain’s other comment was that obama voted present on a partial-birth abortion bill, to which obama responded that since he opposes late-term abortions but this particular bill didn’t protect the mother, he voted present.  this was a very rational response to a very heated issue, and i think obama continued to appear as more of a uniter than a divider, whereas mccain appeared to be more of a divider.

finally, obama got a good line in when he said “i don’t think america’s youth are an interest group,” when mccain was attacking obama’s education policy.

so what does all this mean?  everyone was saying (as they’ve been saying now for weeks) that mccain needed a home run … no, a Grand Slam in the debates to turn this thing around, and obama needed to seriously fuck things up.  i don’t think even then most ardent mccain supporter can both credibly think that this happened and also still have a firm grasp of reality (maybe one of the two, but not both at the same time).  i agreed with obama on pretty much every issue, and i think he both debated and conducted himself better (“looked more presidential”) than mccain.  so, i suppose i would say obama “won,” although i don’t like speaking in absolutes like that.  mccain did better than he has before … but between the questionable judgement he’s displayed on ideas, his lack of validity while attacking obama, and the lack of composure he showed during the debate, i honestly do not think mccain helped himself enough to turn this thing around, if he even helped himself at all.

one final note: since i don’t have access to the internet from home right now, i’ve gone against my word and watched some post-debate stuff on TV.  i even checked out fox news after last night’s debate, since I like to see what the conservative view looks like.  they had *both* sean hannity and mitt romney on the stage at the same time, and i *literally* could not listen to it.  i can stand one of those guys at a time, but not both at once.