About halfway through the debate, my dad and I paused it (thank you DVR) and I asked him how he thought it was going. I was shocked to hear that he thought that McCain might have gained more ground than Obama. To me, Obama was the more poised, well-articulated candidate, and the one who had more compelling answers.
I am liberal though, and so I agree more with Obama, but I tried to be aware of that when evaluating the two candidates' performances. Still, though, I would chalk this one up for Obama. McCain held his own for the most part, though at times he seemed flustered, but what frustrated me about his answers is that he seemed much less willing to debate the issues, most notably in the segment on the economy. Obama repeatedly pointed out the differences between their tax plans, but McCain only wanted to pin the label "big spender" on Obama. Frankly, it felt like a return to Bush's (regretably successful) tactic of labeling Kerry as a flip-flopper. I can understand how it is important to point out where a candidate is wrong or hypocritical, but please at some point debate the issues.
The other thing that bothered me about McCain was that he seemed to use misleading information to try to sway voters away from Obama. This is probably something that both candidates do, but I don't think Obama did this during the debate (at least, McCain never called him on it). What I am referring to is how McCain said that Obama said at one point that he would never cut spending on the troops, but then did. Obama pointed out that what he did was vote against the Republican funding bill that didn't include a time table, but he did vote for the bill that included one. It just seemed dishonest, and a shameful tactic to use.
That said, McCain did pick up ground on the foreign policy segment. Though I think the two came out even on this, I can see how people would say that McCain won this half of the debate. However, I would then agree with the analyst from Fox News, of all places, who said that although McCain won the segment on foreign policy, Obama won the first half on the economy, and since the economy is the more pressing issue, Obama came out ahead overall.
I'm not uber-political, as you all probably well know. I do think that both of these men want the best for America, and I'm a lot more optomistic about these candidates than I was in the last election. All that is to say, this post is about how the candidates faired in the first debate, not what people think of them overall.
Do you agree, or am I way off base (way to the left, no doubt)?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I've only watched a few sections of the debate, but Obama came across as much stronger to me. When faced with questions, McCain was more likely to make statements like "I have been there. I have seen this before. I understand this" rather than saying explicitly what he wants to do.
The "big spender" concept is complete BS - gov't spending has historically grown much faster under republican candidates than democratic ones and it's pretty amazing that it's been able to hold its ground for so long.
You're also right to point out McCain's frequent and, one must assume, intentional distortion and misrepresentation of facts about Obama and his policies. The Obama camp has done similar trash during the commercials, but I'm not sure Obama did it as much during the debate.
Regarding foreign policy, I have the feeling that whatever "edge" McCain may have because of his years in congress (I don't know whether that's true or it's just a talking point), his advantage may well be offset by his association with the Bush war. Foreign leaders in general support Obama, which means they'd be more willing to work with him to achieve foreign policy objectives.
On a more subjective note, McCain's way of speaking gets on my nerves. His tone seems unnaturally mellow, almost plaintive, and I can't help but feel it's duplicitous somehow.
Anyways, you're not too far to the left!
Didn't watch it. Wouldn't comment in this venue (of all places) if I did.
Post a Comment