Obama wins debate, McCain took all punches, McCain never counters
That’s right, he did. I have watched all the spin, read all the spin, and I watched the debate twice. Here is my analysis of what I saw and the reaction from the media talking heads.
Foreign Policy:
I think that it is clear that Obama held his own when talking about foreign policy. McCain tried very hard to paint Obama as not understanding the world. That was evident by the amount of time he said “doesn’t understand” or “naive”. The main problem with that is that it’s a hard sell to anyone with a brain. Obama had an answer to every one of McCain’s rants and made some really good points that McCain never questioned.
When you call someone naive and inexperienced it would be best to be able to pronounce the name of foreign leaders. It might be something small, but it is glaring when you are trying to make a point on inexperience. McCain looked bad there. Also, saying that Pakistan was a failed state and that everyone knew it was true is a GAFFE. They were not a failed state, and you look like an idiot for saying it. Also, when Obama brought up the fact that McCain would not speak to Spain, McCain’s rebuttal was that he didn’t have a seal yet. That was a lame joke #1, but it was a non response and it made him look weak.
Obama brought up Henry Kissinger’s statement that it would be a good approach to meet with Iran without pre-conditions. McCain then tried to twist Obama’s words around to make it seem like he meant the presidents would meet. McCain did that a lot, trying to twist words on things. The problem with that approach is the opponent is RIGHT THERE! It doesn’t work if your opponent can debunk your statement. It also doesn’t work when people can “look it up” and see that Kissinger did say it. Later Kissinger tried to save his friend, but the damage was done since the statements are on the internet. Here they are:
Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said the U.S. should negotiate directly with Iran over its nuclear program and other bilateral issues. “One should be prepared to negotiate, and I think we should be prepared to negotiate about Iran,” Kissinger, who brokered the end of the 1973 Yom Kippur war and peace talks with the North Vietnamese, said yesterday in an interview with Bloomberg Television. Asked whether he meant the U.S. should hold direct talks, Kissinger, 84, responded: “Yes, I think we should.”
Kissinger: “Well, I am in favor of negotiating with Iran. And one utility of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East, of a stable Middle East, and our notion on nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it. And, therefore, I actually have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level so that we — we know we’re dealing with authentic…” Sesno: “Put at a very high level right out of the box?”
There it is right there. You can’t deny it, but they are trying to by sending Kissinger out to say that he would not advise the president speaking with Iranian leaders. Again, this is McCain trying to twist Obama’s words around to make it look like that. Obama never said he would personally fly over and meet with anyone. McCain used I to mean the literal whereas Obama meant the administration. It’s a semantic argument and it gets stupid if all you have is a semantic argument. You look like someone desperate for a point and you are stretching to find something.
I thought Obama had a big moment when he started talking about McCain’s comments on going into the war. I thought Obama made his argument with strength and McCain took the pounding without disproving the comment. That was the biggest key, Obama was able to rebut most attacks by McCain and that never happened on the other side in this debate. Time and time again during the debate, Obama came out swinging and McCain took the blows and changed the subject. McCain fired a shot and Obama countered and disproved the attack or responded. It was a big thing for me, McCain just fired away and got handled.
The Economy:
The economy was not the topic of the debate, but it was a major facet in the beginning of this one. I thought it was odd that McCain kept talking about wasteful spending and earmarks without talking about the middle class. Not once did he say middle class or change! I thought the guy was a born again change agent? I thought Obama missed a big opportunity to point to the earmarks that McCain got for Arizona.
McCain’s claim is false. In 2006, the senator teamed up with fellow Arizona Senator Jon Kyl (R) to funnel $10 million toward the University of Arizona for an academic center named after the late Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist. Even Arizona lawmaker, Rep. Jeff Flake (R), said he was planning to “lean against the measure.” The National Taxpayers Union, another traditional McCain ally, questioned why the senator was making federal taxpayers foot the bill for the center.
In 2003, McCain also slipped $14.3 million into a defense appropriations bill to create a buffer zone around Luke Air Force Base in Arizona. As Roll Call reported in 2003, this project violated McCain’s own anti-pork rhetoric.
This came off as a little hypocritical and I think Obama should’ve called him on it.
Obama was able to dominate the conversation on the economy and was smart enough to speak to the middle class. He spoke confidently and I was pumping my fist when he brought up the health care tax McCain wants to put through. I was happy about that because it is a ridiculous plan and needs to be talked about more and more. I would like to hear the pundits talk about that even more! I think McCain’s plan to clean up spending and earmarks is fine, but it won’t do much to deal with the problems we are in now.
I agree that Obama didn’t talk enough about the economy and the failed policies of McCain, but then again I don’t think most Americans can understand those concepts. I think McCain didn’t do much in this area and that is mainly because his positions suck. Obama should’ve finished his statement on nuclear waste and Arizona, he got cut off but he should’ve said it. I think he will in the economic debate.
Final verdict, Obama wins because McCain could not sell that he didn’t know his stuff. When you are an expert you should be able to destroy someone who is supposedly inferior to you. The world saw that Obama is just as qualified as McCain in foreign policy.
The Pundits:
This was disappointing! I could not understand why they were talking about trivial issues. Chris Matthews asked, “Why was Obama so non-ethnic?” What the hell is that supposed to mean? This election is racial. If you can vote for a black guy, you will; if you can’t, then you will vote for Nader or Barr. That’s it. It seemed the talking heads only cared about stirring up the controversy instead of discussing the debate. How much can one talk about the middle class before it is too much? Obama had to answer questions and counter arguments, and I think he did a good job of that. He talked about the middle class and talked about how important his positions were for Americans. I was glad he talked about his tax plan, because it proved that McCain was only in it to pay off the rich. McCain NEVER responded to it either, he absorbed the blow and moved on. Bottom line, Obama did a good job and the pundits need to stop trying to find objection with the dumbest arguments. Maybe the pundits need to speak about substance just like the candidates have to do.
