The First Presidential Debate 2008: Obama and McCain.

September 29, 2008.

Rant by Me: And the Winner is…

Senator Barack Obama. Yes, I am biased, I admit. However, there is little doubt when you consider the polls about who won the debate last Friday.  A CNN polls confirm; 51% felt Obama did a better job debating to McCain’s 38%. When it came to who would do a better job handling the economy; Obama 58% to McCain 37% – that’s a huge win, which was likely precipitated by a couple things. 1) McCain claiming the economy is fundamentally sound, and 2) McCain running off to D.C. to help with the bailout even though he knows little about economics (from his own mouth).

Yes, die hard idealists on the Republican side will disagree with any assessment other than McCain “nailed it,” but this just feeds into the we can “fool the stupid people” into voting for this guy. Bottom line is there are distinct differences between these candidates and you really should do your research and vote for the one who best represents the issues most important to you. Move beyond the rhetoric, sift through the lies and get to know each candidate.

Back to the debate. I want to mention a couple things I noticed which warrant discussion. Firstly, I felt McCain was very disrespectful of Obama, not only in the way he spoke of him but the body language was clear. McCain never once looked at Obama during the debate – this is a debate John, you are supposed to address one another at times and you never once looked at your opponent. 2) Candidates should do their research prior to getting on stage (I assume they do, anyway). Furthermore, it is insulting when candidates use cynical viewpoints in order to promote their position, regardless of the falsities within. To this last point I am speaking primarily to Senator McCain.

I would also like to bring up one clear misconception of Obama which is being exploited by the McCain campaign since the debate; When Obama refers to McCain being “right” or in essence Obama “agrees” with something McCain says, he is referring to the fact they have areas of agreement. It is ok to give someone a pat on the back for agreeing with you. This, in my opinion shows leadership in a candidate. It is misleading to insinuate Obama agrees with McCain because it was McCain’s idea or because Obama cannot think for himself – as McCain’s campaign has attempted to portray Obama. Again, using cynicism to sway the stupid people.

Now, let’s use the transcripts as fodder: I shall, of course retort when appropriate…

Earmarks

McCain: “Well, the first thing we have to do is get spending under control in Washington…” “We Republicans came to power to change government, and government changed us. And the — the worst symptom on this disease is what my friend, Tom Coburn, calls earmarking as a gateway drug, because it’s a gateway. It’s a gateway to out-of-control spending and corruption.” “Now, Senator Obama, you wanted to know one of the differences. a million dollars for every day that he’s been in the United States Senate.”

I say: Agreed. This is a good first step and I am glad to see Obama has changed his tune on earmarks…

Obama: “Well, Senator McCain is absolutely right that the earmarks process has been abused, which is why I suspended any requests for my home state, whether it was for senior centers or what have you, until we cleaned it up.”

The Surge

McCain: “Senator Obama said the surge could not work, said it would increase sectarian violence, said it was doomed to failure. Recently on a television program, he said it exceed our wildest expectations.”

Obama: “Senator McCain is absolutely right that the violence has been reduced as a consequence of the extraordinary sacrifice of our troops and our military families.”

I say: Ok, he said it for the fourth time. But does this nullify the fact Bush and McCain lied to us to get into Iraq in the first place? Does this change the fact Bush and his cronies took their eye of the ball in Afghanistan? Yes, we must deal with Iraq now, but it was poor judgment which got us there in the first place and McCain was a part of the call. In effect he has repeatedly displayed poor judgment.

Obama: “if the question is who is best-equipped as the next president to make good decisions about how we use our military, how we make sure that we are prepared and ready for the next conflict, then I think we can take a look at our judgment.”

I say: I cant speak for anyone else but me. Since 9-11 I feel Americans have lost sight of the real target, Osama Bin Laden. The fight was never in Iraq, that was a war over hurt feelings and oil. Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) was a smoke screen and a lie constructed to convince us it was a justified. Bad judgment. By the way, Senator McCain and Senator Obama – here is the difference between tactic and strategy – since both of you do not know the difference…

Strategy is the utilization, during both peace and war, of all of a nation’s forces, through large-scale, long-range planning and development, to ensure security or victory. Tactics deals with the use and deployment of troops in actual combat. – from dictionary.com

The Surge was actually a short-term strategy which was necessary because longer term strategy was not working.

McCain continually claimed Obama said we were not “winning” in Iraq and this simply is not true. Obama called the surge a “tactic,” not true. However, it really is not a long-term strategy either. McCain eludes to this during the discussion…

McCain: “It was a stratagem.”

That is true. Glad we got it straight!

But I have got to be completely honest here, I don’t give a rats ass about the surge. I care about getting our troops home and ceasing to spend billions of dollars on a country which should be supporting itself. This is an ideological position I share with Obama.

Al Qaeda

McCain: “Osama bin Laden and General Petraeus have one thing in common that I know of, they both said that Iraq is the central battleground.”

I say: Not only do I disagree with this statement, but even if it were true this came about because we extended our military might into this country in the first place. So, either way it is our fault.

The Bracelet Exchange

McCain: “And I’ll tell you, I had a town hall meeting in Wolfeboro, New Hampshire, and a woman stood up and she said, “Senator McCain, I want you to do me the honor of wearing a bracelet with my son’s name on it.” He was 22 years old and he was killed in combat outside of Baghdad, Matthew Stanley, before Christmas last year. This was last August, a year ago. And I said, “I will — I will wear his bracelet with honor.”"

Obama: “I’ve got a bracelet, too, from Sergeant – from the mother of Sergeant Ryan David Jopeck, sure another mother is not going through what I’m going through.”

I say: Offsetting bracelets, great. How does this help us? More pandering on McCain’s behalf and Obama felt compelled to retort.

Iran

McCain: “My reading of the threat from Iran is that if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it is an existential threat to the State of Israel and to other countries in the region because the other countries in the region will feel compelling requirement to acquire nuclear weapons as well.”

I say: Agreed.

Obama: “And ironically, the single thing that has strengthened Iran over the last several years has been the war in Iraq. Iraq was Iran’s mortal enemy. That was cleared away. And what we’ve seen over the last several years is Iran’s influence grow. They have funded Hezbollah, they have funded Hamas, they have gone from zero centrifuges to 4,000 centrifuges to develop a nuclear weapon.”

I say: Agreed. And this is precisely why we need a different administration in power, an administration which will use diplomacy without requiring foreign nations to comply before talking.

And this is the most preposterous thing Mccain said during the whole debate…

McCain: “Senator Obama twice said in debates he would sit down with Ahmadinejad, Chavez and Raul Castro without precondition. Without precondition. Here is Ahmadinenene [mispronunciation], Ahmadinejad, who is, Ahmadinejad, who is now in New York, talking about the extermination of the State of Israel, of wiping Israel off the map, and we’re going to sit down, without precondition, across the table, to legitimize and give a propaganda platform to a person that is espousing the extermination of the state of Israel, and therefore then giving them more credence in the world arena and therefore saying, they’ve probably been doing the right thing, because you will sit down across the table from them and that will legitimize their illegal behavior.”

I say: First of all, you completely butchered Ahmadinejad’s name. Not that it matters, since you wont be talking to him. But to say by talking to him would legitimize his position is totally ridiculous. We have taken the position of not talking and it has given him empowerment.

Obama: “First of all, Ahmadinejad is not the most powerful person in Iran. So he may not be the right person to talk to. But I reserve the right, as president of the United States to meet with anybody at a time and place of my choosing if I think it’s going to keep America safe.”

I say: Notice the bolded part. Nailed it.

More on Russia, Putin as K.G.B. and looking into his soul, plus a wrap up on foreign policy in the next day or two.