CE Week #5: “Obama, McCain spar on war, taxes”. . . AND MORE
|
OXFORD, Miss. — John McCain accused Barack Obama of compiling “the most liberal voting record in the United States Senate” tonight in their first debate of a close campaign for the White House. The Democrat shot back, “Mostly that’s just me opposing George Bush’s wrong-headed policies.”
Obama said his Republican rival has been a loyal supporter of the unpopular president across the past eight years, adding that the current economic crisis is “a final verdict on eight years of failed economic policies promoted by President Bush and supported by Sen. McCain.”
The two men clashed over spending, taxes, energy and — at length — the war in Iraq during their 90-minute debate.
McCain accused his younger rival of an “incredible thing of voting to cut off funds for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan,” a reference to legislation that cleared the Senate more than a year ago.
Obama disputed that, saying he had opposed funding in a bill that presented a “blank check” to the Pentagon while McCain had opposed money in legislation that included a timetable for troop withdrawal.
In 2002, befoere he was a member of Congress, Obama opposed the invasion of Iraq, while McCain voted to authorize the war as a member of the Senate.
“You were wrong” on Iraq, Obama repeated three times in succession. “John, you like to pretend the war began in 2007.”
McCain replied that Obama has refused to acknowledge the success of the troop buildup in Iraq that McCain recommended and Bush announced more than a year ago.
The two presidential candidates stood behind identical wooden lecterns on stage at the performing arts center at the University of Mississippi for the first of three scheduled debates with less than six weeks remaining until Election Day. The two vice presidential candidates will meet next week for their only debate.
The 47-year-old Obama is seeking to become the nation’s first black president. McCain, 72, is hoping to become the oldest first-term chief executive in history — and he made a few jokes at his own expense.
“I’ve been around a while,” he said at one point. “Were you afraid I couldn’t hear you?” he said at another after Obama repeated a comment.
It was a debate that almost didn’t happen. McCain decided at the last minute to attend, two days after announcing he would try to have the event rescheduled if Congress had not reached an agreement on an economic bailout to deal with the crisis now gripping Wall Street.
The two men were pointed but polite as they covered most issues, although at least once, McCain sought to depict his rival as naive on foreign policy. That was particularly true when it came to Obama’s statement that it might become necessary to send U.S. troops across the Pakistani border to pursue terrorists.
“You don’t say that out loud,” retorted McCain. “If you have to do things, you do things.”
McCain also seemed eager to demonstrate his knowledge of foreign policy, recalling the names of three former leaders of the Soviet Union in one sentence.
Moderator Jim Lehrer’s opening question concerned the economic crisis gripping Wall Street. While neither man committed to supporting bailout legislation taking shape in Congress, they readily agreed lawmakers must take action to prevent millions of Americans from losing their jobs and their homes.
Both also said they were pleased that lawmakers in both parties were negotiating on a compromise.
McCain made a point of declaring his independence from Bush.
“I have opposed the president on spending, on climate change, on torture of prisoners, on Guantanamo Bay, on a long — on the way that the Iraq War was conducted. I have a long record and the American people know me very well … a maverick of the Senate.”
He jabbed at Obama, who he said has requested millions of dollars in pork barrel spending, including some after he began running for president.
As he does frequently while campaigning, the Republican vowed to veto any lawmaker’s pork barrel project that reaches his desk in the White House. “You will know their names and I will make them famous,” he said.
The stakes were high as the two rivals walked on stage. The polls gave Obama a modest lead and indicated he was viewed more favorably than his rival when it came to dealing with the economy. But the same surveys show McCain favored by far on foreign policy.
Both candidates had rehearsed extensively, Obama prepping with advisers at a resort in Clearwater, Fla., and McCain putting in debate work at his home outside Washington.
The two presidential hopefuls are scheduled to debate twice more, at Belmont University in Nashville on Oct. 7 and at Hofstra University in Hempsted, N.Y., on Oct. 15. Vice presidential contenders Sarah Palin and Joe Biden are to square off in a single debate Oct. 2 at Washington University in St. Louis.
Now for the Important Part: Who Won?
Opinion #1: McCain
Barack Obama plays Mr. Nice Guy — and loses — in the first debate.
Oxford, Mississippi — A few minutes after the debate between John McCain and Barack Obama ended here on the campus of the University of Mississippi, I asked close McCain adviser Charlie Black whether Obama had performed as McCain’s debate team had anticipated.
“No, no,” Black said emphatically. “I never expected Sen. Obama to spend the entire debate on the defensive, and he did. He did.”
“I think Senator McCain’s absolutely right that we need more responsibility…”
“Senator McCain is absolutely right that the earmarks process has been abused…” “He’s also right that oftentimes lobbyists and special interests are the ones that are introducing these…requests…” “John mentioned the fact that business taxes on paper are high in this country, and he’s absolutely right…”
“John is right we have to make cuts…”
“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…”
“John — you’re absolutely right that presidents have to be prudent in what they say…”
“Senator McCain is absolutely right, we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran…”
Add it all up, and Obama was undeniably, and surprisingly, deferential to a man who in the past Obama has said “doesn’t get it.” Moments after the debate ended, I asked David Axelrod, Obama’s chief strategist, whether Obama had simply been too nice (not a question one often gets to ask in these situations). “The bottom line is, I don’t think the American people want us to disagree just for the sake of being disagreeable,” Axelrod told me. “I think he made a very strong case, absolutely.”
Well, you wouldn’t expect Axelrod to admit that his guy messed up. But here’s a prediction: The next time McCain and Obama meet in debate, on October 7 in Nashville, start a drinking game in which you take a big swig every time Obama says, “John is absolutely right.” I’ll bet you get to the end of the debate without ever lifting a glass – Disclaimer from Kautzman DO NOT DO THIS – JUST IN CASE HE IS WRONG, I DO NOT WANT TO ADVOCATE UNDERAGE DRINKING.
But Obama’s problem wasn’t just saying “John is right” too many times. He also let McCain control the discussion even when — especially when — the conversation turned to issues that play to Obama’s strength. The debate was scheduled to focus entirely on foreign policy and national security, but for obvious reasons moderator Jim Lehrer devoted the first half-hour to the current financial crisis. Polls show Obama with a pretty big lead on economic issues, and yet McCain was able to turn the discussion — ostensibly about the $700 billion bailout proposal — into an extended examination of federal spending and earmarks, two issues about which McCain has strong feelings and a good record. When McCain pointed out that Obama had asked for $932 million in earmarks — “nearly a million dollars a day for every day that he’s been in the United States Senate” — Obama answered weakly that yes, the 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.” Not his best moment.
When the debate came around to the topic of the evening, McCain outshone Obama on topics like Russia and Pakistan while hitting him over and over for his comments, made in earlier Democratic debates, that he would meet Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad “without precondition.” On Iraq, the two men fought to a draw, with McCain arguing that Obama was wrong on the surge and Obama arguing that McCain was wrong on the war. It seems unlikely they will change anyone’s mind about that.
The bottom line was that Obama did well enough, but McCain did better. A number of post-debate observers suggested that Obama might emerge the winner on these topics because he was able to stand alongside McCain and argue as an equal despite McCain’s greater experience. Maybe viewers will handicap the contest that way, but if they judge it straight, McCain will come out on top.
One odd thing about the debate was that it never touched on the fact that it almost didn’t happen. McCain’s go-to-Washington-to-fix-the-bailout-and-postpone-the-debate gambit was the talk of political insiders before the debate, but once the discussion began onstage, it nearly disappeared altogether. “Yes, I went back to Washington, and I met with my Republicans in the House of Representatives,” McCain said at one point. (How surprised those House Republicans will be to learn that they are McCain’s Republicans.) But after that brief remark, McCain never mentioned it again, nor did Obama.
Perhaps that’s because the fact that the debate was held, and the world didn’t end, showed that there was no need to postpone it, but the fact that progress had been made in Washington showed that McCain was right to abandon his debate prep to play a role in the bailout talks. Both McCain and Obama turned out to be half right and half wrong.
And in the end, what a mistake it would have been for McCain to have stayed away from this debate. Several hours before it began, when it was finally clear that there was going to be a debate at all, the Obama campaign sent an e-mail to reporters attempting to lower expectations for their man’s performance. Nobody paid much attention; it was, after all, an entirely unremarkable bit of pre-spin. But in this case, it turned out to be right.
Byron York, NR’s White House correspondent, is the author of the book The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President — and Why They’ll Try Even Harder Next Time.
Opinion #2: Obama
Obama Wins Debate On Tactics and Strategies
Toward the very end of tonight’s debate—which was quite a good one, I believe—John McCain laid out his rationale in this election in just a few words: Senator Obama, he said, lacks the “knowledge and experience to be President.” The presidency will turn on whether the American people agree with McCain on that—but on this night, Obama emerged as a candidate who was at least as knowledgeable, judicious and unflappable as McCain on foreign policy … and more knowledgeable, and better suited to deal with the economic crisis and domestic problems the country faces.
But even if my verdict were reversed to grant McCain a slight victory, there was nothing in this debate that was a knockout blow—nothing that should change the current trajectory of the campaign. (Although it may staunch the slow bleed that McCain has experienced the past week). Obama seemed plenty presidential; McCain seemed more prudent and thoughtful than he has since he uttered the most important line of the campaign so far, “the fundamentals of the economy are good.” Neither man closed the sale, and I don’t think many votes, or opinions, were changed.
This was a debate—at times explicitly—about tactics and strategies. McCain was more tactical, trying to pick fights with Obama on the details of foreign policy and not venturing beyond his personal domestic policy obsessions like the $18 billion spent per year on Congressional earmarks. Obama was more concerned with strategy, and an overall vision for the country—he was the one who brought up the damage done to America’s standing in the world, and also the one who insisted on putting the war in Iraq in a broader strategic context: it had hurt America’s overall position in the middle east by empowering Iran and allowing Al Qaeda to regain strength in Afghanistan. As for McCain’s remark about Obama not knowing the difference between a tactic and a strategy—McCain was wrong. The counterinsurgency methods introduced by David Petraeus in Iraq were a tactical change, a new means to achieve Bush’s same strategic end of a stable, unified Iraq. If Bush had decided to partition the country, or to withdraw, that would have been a change in strategy.
McCain was clearly the aggressor in this debate and that may have worked to his advantage—Obama graciously admitted when he agreed with McCain; McCain rarely acknowledged Obama in that or any other way. The problem with McCain’s aggressiveness was that it almost always involved misstating Obama’s positions—on offshore drilling, nuclear power, talking to our enemies, raising taxes on the middle class, attacking Pakistan … the same list of untruths McCain has stuck with throughout the campaign. Or he’d try to make petty distinctions, like whether Obama’s initial statements on Georgia were tough enough. When Obama chose to criticize McCain it was on big things—supporting the war in Iraq, opposing alternative energy, standing by the Republican trickle-down philosophy of taxation. In this way, too, Obama was strategic and McCain tactical.
McCain was also confused about what “preconditions” means in diplo-speak. The Bush Administration had, until recently, set a precondition for talks with Iran: that the Iranians had to stop processing nuclear fuel. Obama would talk to the Iranians—as Henry Kissinger and James Baker would—without setting that condition. (Diplo-speak only vaguely resembles English: precondition is redundant, all conditions for starting a negotiation are pre-.) Unfortunately, we never learned how McCain feels about that condition because Obama dropped the ball here—he never explained what he meant by “preconditions” in this specific context or asked McCain if he agreed. There were several other opportunities missed by Obama: he could have noted that the Iraqi government has agreed to his notion of a timetable and asked McCain, Do you want to stay longer than the Iraqis want us there?
Ultimately, sadly, these debates are won, or lost, on style and perceptions of character—not substance. Those are matters of taste. We’ll see if McCain seemed too old or Obama too young. Obama did speak in a stronger, firmer voice. He was clear, straightforward and not at all professorial. He looked directly into the camera; McCain rarely, if ever, did. But McCain put his experience—his frequent travels overseas—to good use in this debate, although his standard laugh lines like “Miss Congeniality” seemed to bomb.
Obama did everything he had to do, with few if any mistakes. I thought McCain did less so. The early snap polling seems to agree with me, but I’d caution against taking those too seriously. This was a big event in this campaign—the beginning of the end. It will need to be digested, discussed around the water cooler and the dinner table. But the race has not been decided yet.
I agree with the last statement of opinion number 2: “But the race has not been decided yet.” In fact, I agree with opinion number 2 for the most part. “Neither man closed the sale, and I don’t think many votes, or opinions, were changed.” I do not think that either side really won this debate. This debate put the positions of each candidate right next to each other in a manner that allowed for true discussion. But, if I really have to decide who won, I am leaning more towards McCain. “McCain was clearly the aggressor in this debate and that may have worked to his advantage—Obama graciously admitted when he agreed with McCain; McCain rarely acknowledged Obama in that or any other way.” I definitely noticed that the tide seemed to favor McCain. McCain was definitely more chipper throughout the debate. He was, agreeably, on the offense. But, in response to the first opinion article, I do not think that Obama was conceding anything when he agreed with McCain. Obama used his agreements with Obama to support his positions. “Ultimately, sadly, these debates are won, or lost, on style and perceptions of character—not substance.” McCain did not seem too old, and Obama did not seem too young.
This was the first presidential debate I have ever watched so it was pretty exciting for me. I’m not much of a debater and I rarely watch debates so I really wasn’t sure what to think of this one. In my opinion it was really boring and hard to follow but I did have a basic understanding of what they were talking about. I can tell that the author of this article thinks that McCain won the debate and maybe he did because his expectations were low to begin with and he was a really good speaker. Obama was a good speaker as well but I did notice that he agreed with McCain a lot which I thought was weird. They both expressed their ideas about the economy and the war and their ideas haven’t changed. The author states, “Neither man closed the sale, and I don’t think many votes, or opinions, were changed” and I agree with that statement. The candidates didn’t say anything too special or out of the ordinary. So, I’m not quite sure whether who won or not. When I watched the news show right after the debate somebody said that McCain had won. McCain probably did win because he exceeded expectations but I personally wouldn’t know how to judge whether he won or not.
Like Mr. Kautzman and Chris Mattews explains, the debate is won on the basis of who exceeds expectations. McCain lacks in the area of organizational speaking which Obama succeeds, but McCain’s knowledge of foreign policy exceeds Obamas. In this debate I think both candidates had standards to which they were to live up to and I agree with the second opinion article that states, “Obama emerged as a candidate who was at least as knowledgeable, judicious and unflappable as McCain on foreign policy … and more knowledgeable, and better suited to deal with the economic crisis and domestic problems the country faces.” Obama exceeded the expectations on foreign policy debated in a classy way that did not attack McCain. However, it is said that Obama became a “softy” in the debate by agreeing with McCain on numerous issues, but in reality why can’t he agree on some issues? The general public is not totally Republican or completely Democratic so why do our candidates have to be divided on every issue? As stated above, Obama looked into the camera and delivered his speech very well. One thing I also noticed was that Obama did not make faces like McCain did when he heard Obama say things he didn’t agree with. Obama took control of the debate with every time he said,”When I am President….”
The first of three presidential debates ended how I thought it would – no clear winner. John McCain and Barack Obama both simply repeated most of their beliefs that they have been spewing out through their respective campaigns. Both candidates, obviously, took turns chipping and degrading the other’s policy on economic, energy, and foreign policies. Throughout the debate, which nearly didn’t take place because of McCain and his demand for the Wall Street bailout, Obama agreed with McCain on several issues. Like the article states, these comments probably hurt Obama, but not necessarily. I also don’t expect Obama to repeat these comments merely because they make John McCain, in my opinion, look like a more capable candidate than at first glance. Whether McCain or Obama “won” the debate is not the main issue. The main issue resides in, like Mr. Kautzman always says (!!), who exceeded expectations. I think that the winner in this regard is clearly McCain. If Obama, the charismatic and likable, could have actually taken a real stance on an issue, he may have won. But McCain, good ol’ McCain, actually spoke very well and definitely exceeded the expectations set before him. Mark up one tally for McCain.
I managed to watch the debate in its entirety by driving to the library and watching the whole hour and a half on my laptop. Now I cannot say that this was very interesting and at times my mind wandered and I did not pay attention. For the most part I just picked out a few anomalies in the candidates. I enjoyed the way that they used the phrase “this is a fundamental difference between myself and X” or “you see that is a fundamental difference between us”. It seems to me that instead of really debating, they are just following a preordained script, and that script was a form were they just wrote in whether they were for or against an issue. Now, in my opinion Obama won the debate, I cannot really support my decision with concrete facts, but it seemed to me that McCain was on the defensive more often than not. Whether or not he defended himself well I cannot say, mostly because I could hardly understand what they were talking about half the time. The main thing that I got from this debate is that it was not really a debate, it was a question and answer segment with people of opposing views were asked the same questions in the same room. What I did not see in this debate, was any debating.
Politicians have the biggest egos I have ever seen in my life. While I know that in their heart of hearts they just want to make a difference, it simply can’t overshadow how much they love themselves and their ideas. It is like John McCain saying “I have a long record and the American people know me very well … a maverick of the Senate.” I’m thinking…yes we know how amazing you are, no need to push the point. McCain may just have the bigger ego of the two men.
It is important that each candidate sounds confident in themselves so that the American people will be confident in them, but I’m not sure I can separate that thought from the fact that they think their ideas are the right way to go. Each of them has to be open to compromise.
I am not an expert on presidential debates and honestly this is the first one I have actually ever paid a lot of attention to. I can’t really choose who won I think won. It would be easy to make a case for both sides. Obama made some mistakes…like saying McCain was right, but…over and over again. Plus for Obama, foreign policy isn’t his area of expertise making him less witty. It could be argued that Obama is more knowledgeable about domestic issues and has a better foundation for the real issues.
I agree with the author of opinion two: McCain was the aggressor of the debate. He was constantly trying to pick a fight with Obama about issues. Obama is really good at deflecting it and looking at the bigger picture (a vision for America). It could be argued that McCain won the debate because he was more aggressive. I just don’t know.
I’m pretty disappointed to have missed the debate on Friday, so I’m hoping to catch tonight’s vice presidential debate… After reading this article, I decided to look up different responses to this debate. Check out what I found mot recently: “You get the sense in watching the polls that the presidential race may be on the brink of breaking toward Barack Obama. The independents and undecideds are beginning to make up their minds, and they’re going in Obama’s direction. By definition, the folks in the middle harbor doubts and suspicions about both candidates. The direction they head depends on which of those doubts are confirmed and which are dispelled. In last week’s presidential debates, and in the posturing over the Wall Street economic crisis, Obama has seemed to get the better of that process” (seattlepi.com). It seemed pretty obvious that when it comes to the economy, Barack Obama is getting the majority vote from Americans. With any debate past or upcoming, individual candidate success depends not only on meeting standards, but also exceeding expectations. While most would consider Obama to be a very eloquent speaker, it only means that the bar is set much higher for him than McCain. With the debate tonight, Palin’s will be fighting pretty low expectations, which could either spell trouble or ultimate success.
At the beginning of the debate, I found it hilarious that the moderator, Jim Lehrer, could not get either of the candidates to argue with each other, much less look at each other. There were a couple times where Lehrer would ask Obama to respond to McCain’s answer, and Obama would end up talking straight to Lehrer or the camera, not to McCain. It seemed as though neither candidate wanted to be the first one to go on the offensive and attack the opposing candidate.
However, as the candidates began to warm up, McCain took the commanding position and stayed on the offensive for the rest of the debate. McCain would try to bash Obama or Obama’s policies every chance he got. Obama, on the other hand, never really fought back. He was always on the defensive and never seemed to gain enough confidence to attack McCain. As stated in the article, Obama “seemed inexplicably eager to concede that McCain was right on issue after issue.” I agree with the article in that Obama will want to make sure he does not concede so much in the next presidential debate.
This election season is beginning to look very similar to the 2004 Bush v. Kerry election. The Republicans constantly attacked Kerry on every mistake he made, whereas the Democrats had a hard time defending themselves, thus losing the election. If Obama wants to clinch the victory, he has to start attacking McCain instead of agreeing with him.
In my opinion, John McCain won this debate.
The most accurate statement made in any of these articles was Klein’s statement that “neither man closed the sale, and I don’t think many votes, or opinions, were changed.” In my opinion, both men did very well. McCain, although still the weaker of the two as far as I could tell, greatly surpassed expectations. He showed up (definitely a good decision), spoke coherently, and made many rational arguments. McCain showed little of the lack of restraint and impulse control that he often struggles with. On the other hand, he did seem a bit overly aggressive at times and occasionally seemed to misinterpret Obama’s statements and stances. I strongly disagree with York’s implication that Obama was simply conceding to McCain’s positions. There is nothing wrong with agreeing with aspects of McCain’s opinions, especially given the fact that his concessions were immediately followed by a “but” or a further statement. He spoke elegantly and handled himself well in a debate setting. Obama proved himself to be extremely knowledgeable and demonstrated that his lack of experience does not handicap his ability to understand complicated political issues and construct sound and coherent policies. As far as I am concerned, both parties should be completely satisfied with the results of the first debate.
I wholeheartedly agree with several assessments made by both opinion pieces here. I believe that Barack Obama should have pressed harder, McCain was the one firing most of the barbs, and Obama needed to be tougher in this debate. However, McCain has his own failings. He wouldn’t even look at the camera or Obama, and his attempts at humor didn’t get any laughs. Obama faced the camera and kept his cool, while McCain seemed to get angry and lose his cool somewhat. This debate seemed to lack much that was decisive, both seemed to dodge questions, though both landed some blows. McCain kept attacking Obama, so he landed more, and I think that could be an issue in terms of perceiving the debate one way or the other. Another addition problem on Obama’s part is that he did in fact graciously state when he did agree with Senator McCain, and McCain did not reciprocate. He could have phrased most of his responses quite differently. “That’s true, but…” is probably better because it prevents him from repeating his opponents name, because repetition sticks more easily than the eloquent rebuttal. Nothing decisive stood out from this debate, however. There was no one line that doomed or sank a candidate. So, this debate seems like it would have very little impact. It almost seems like the upcoming VP debate will do more to define this campaign, because of the attention over Palin.
In this debate I have to lean more towards the first opinion that “Obama did well enough, but McCain did better”. Obama held his side well, but McCain was able to stay on the offensive for the majority of the debate. In the beginning when the debate started with the current financial crisis “McCain was able to turn the discussion” to earmarks and the bailout, and also pointed out that “Obama had asked for $932 million in earmarks”. Obama also agreed with McCain eight times in this debate, which could be taken either for or against him, but I thought it gave reason to sway more towards McCain. But as well as McCain did in the beginning Obama was able to recover and show that he was “knowledgeable, judicious and unflappable” in a few foreign policy areas as well as the points he was able to make on the economy. This was an interesting debate overall minus the arguments about “preconditions” and “the difference between a tactic and a strategy”. In the end “…there was nothing in this debate that was a knockout blow” though, I think this debate only solidified the fact the Obama has an upper hand in economics and McCain an upper hand in foreign policy.
Honestly, this seems like a game of tag. The debate started out with neither candidate wanting to start the actual “debate” with the other one, it wasn’t until McCain began bringing up Obama’s voting history that sparks began to fly. I agree with opinion #1, that McCain won the debate. It seems as if Obama was mostly on the defense while McCain swooped in taking control of the issues and bringing up the shortcomings of Senator Obama. As said in opinion one, Obama was constantly saying that McCain is absolutely right about this, or right about that… then why are you running against him if you agree with him? Playing the devils advocate though, McCain was also infamous for dodging some of the important questions asked during the debate. Sometimes he would bring up something Obama wouldn’t do, rather than saying what he himself would do. McCain also would constantly be found almost comically laughing at his running mates views or opinions on some topics, which came off to me as unsportsmanlike. Obama did have some good points and brought up some good topics of discussion, but McCain came into that debate with his offensive game all planned out and it definitely worked well for him.
Both authors have many valid pints. I disagree with both though. This debate was too close to call. No one clearly won it, and it will change nothing. McCain needed a decisive victory to close his gap on Obama but he did not receive it. The author who claimed McCain’s victory made several good points, one was that Obama agreed with McCain too much. Obama is a master at rhetoric however, and the things he said after that needed to be taken to account, he did not flat out agree with McCain as the author implies. The author of article 2 made several good points as well, Obama found a way to brush of McCain’s attacks and come out on top. When it comes down to it Obama just presents himself in a much better way than McCain, he is energetic and has a tremendous speaking voice, McCain whistles when he speaks and it really really bothers me. Either way, nothing McCain could say would divert attention from his conservative, more of the same economic policy. As K-money (Kautzman) always says “people vote their pocket books.” McCain is going to be identified with the economic crisis no matter what he does, and stating that economics is not his strong point does not help his case. The debates will do nothing for McCain; his only hope is for the economy to drastically improve. Obama 08’
There are good points from both opinion one and opinion two. It was no surprise to me that McCain seemed more knowledgable, which he did. The second argument claims that McCain dropped the ball because when Obama was talking about the financial crisis the only thing McCain commented on was Obama wanting a lot of spending for “pork-barrel” spending. But I think that he shouldn’t have had to talk about the economy because this debate was supposed to be about foreign policy. I also loved the opinion because, watching the debate, I never actually realized how often Obama agreed with McCain until the article counted them all up. On the same note, McCain did the exact opposite only attacking Obama making him seem like he knew nothing. That was one reason I agree with opinion two that neither party won. However, the author of opinion two brings up the fact that substance doesn’t matter as much as speech, and I just don’t see how that is fair (I know politics isn’t fair) because we all know McCain isn’t a good speaker but that doesn’t prove that he can’t be a leader. In all, there might not have been a clear winner, but it was cool to see McCain on the offense for once.
It is definitely a good thing that there are multiple presidential debates. I do not believe that there was a clear cut winner of round number one. Both candidates had their better moments and a few weak ones, but overall they both exhibited a strong performance. I think that opinion two in this article more accurately depicted what actually transpired in the debate, although he may be being more modest because Obama was on the defensive relatively the entire time. The first opinion spent too many words saying that McCain did so much better, while he should have addressed how he thought that McCain did a better job at delivering his points or something like that. I wonder though, could Obama possibly have spoken on the defensive and been really polite in order to lower expectations for the upcoming debates? Maybe he saw how low the expectations for Palin were, and decided that if he could lower the public’s expectations for him, he could then come back full strength and blow away viewers. We will never know for sure, but I think that after watching the next debate there will be an answer to that question, whether it be yes or no.
With what I saw of the debate, I agree with the first opinion. Like the author of that opinion, I also noticed Obama telling McCain that he was correct very often, almost too often. To me, that doesn’t seem like something you want to do during a debate. The last time I checked, a debate was for arguing and not agreeing. I don’t think that has ever changed, but apparently Obama didn’t get the message this time around.
I actually found it amusing when McCain began talking about earmarks and Obama responded, “yes, the 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.’” That was a huge mistake on his part. He may have stopped using them temporarily, but his wording made it sound as if he definitely planned on using them again, after they “cleaned it up.” I have to give McCain a hand for putting Obama on the spot with something like that. No matter what Obama would’ve said, either in denial or the way he happened to say it, he would have sounded like an idiot. It was perfect.
In my opinion, McCain won this debate. It may have been because of the way McCain put Obama on the spot, or it may have just been because Obama gave stupid answers even when he wasn’t being put on the spot. No matter the reason, McCain won.
I would have to say that I don’t think either candidate did a stellar job at this debate. Both had ample opportunities to strengthen their positions on many issues and take “stabs,” nice stabs, at the opposing candidate. I do not mean that they should be uncivil but they do not have to be politically correct when pointing out the weaknesses of their opponent. After class today Mr. Kautzman and I were talking about the presidential debate when he brought up a good point. At one point Obama referenced a bracelet that he wore to remind him of a sergeant. During the debate, he went to reference this bracelet and mention the name of this sergeant and promptly forgot his name. This to me suggests that he wore the bracelet only for the image of “supporting the troops,” or maybe even just supporting the families since he does not like the war. I do think that McCain was weak in some of the things he said. He could have pressed Obama to explain his knowledge of the difference between “strategy” and “tactics” because Obama stated he knew the difference but never actually explained it. Wow, that isn’t typically political now is it? All in all, I thought it was quite a boring debate. My mom just brought up a good point, we just finished watching the vice-president debate, it would be SO FUN to watch a debate where all four, McCain, Obama, Palin, and Biden, were on the stage. Wouldn’t that be interesting?
As the adage goes, “the best defense is a good offence.” McCain played the offensive the whole time, while Obama played the defensive. McCain appeared to get under Obama’s skin. It made Obama appear visually frustrated. McCain never backed down. Obama passed a question sometimes, when it seemed too hard, or that he couldn’t figure a way to answer it properly. Well a president can’t dodge a subject that’s too hard to answer, like a threat from terrorists, or an economic crisis. You can’t just “pass” those, you have to deal with them, and that is exactly what Obama DIDN’T do. McCain took the lead, however. McCain seemed very adamant about what he believed. McCain appeared to be the leader in this debate, because he kept driving points and putting Obama on the defensive. McCain is for no-negotiating with Iran until they meet a set of pre-conditions. Obama was just for talking with them no matter what, not needing to meet any requirements. McCain demonstrated that his troop-surge in Iraq was very correct, while Obama’s was incorrect. Thus his prediction for a troop surge in Afghanistan seemed very logical, while Obama mimicked McCain once again in focusing efforts on Afghanistan. However, Obama doesn’t believe that Iraq should have so much effort put into it nowadays, whereas McCain believes it should be a high-priority. Obama, now feeling like a humiliated, wet dog, appeared to loose his cool after McCain dug in under his skin. McCain’s leadership ability in this debate directly reflects of what his leadership abilities would be in the nation if he was elected president.
I am a pretty liberal person, but I think that, from an objective standpoint, McCain may have won the debate. What I mean by that is, you have to give credit where credit is due. The American public seems to disagree with me though, as Obama received a small jump in the polls in the “swing-states”. Barack Obama seemed weak at points (which McCain tried to take advantage of), but, overall, he showed well during the debate.
When people look at a debate, what do they look for? Like most Americans, I look for assertiveness, and having strong stances on your opinions. McCain did exactly that. Barack Obama conceded too many (eight…apparently) points to McCain. “John is right” seemed to be a theme for Obama during the debate. Which either makes Obama look bad by not being a “strong candidate”, or makes him look good by having a willingness to go across party lines and agree with his opponent.
But a lot of the time that Obama said “John is right”, he went on to acknowledge McCain’s stance and find common ground, and then put it into his own words and make an improved stance compared to McCain’s.
All in all, I think that McCain won by being more assertive, but Obama showed that he could contend with McCain in the debate, and that may be a victory within itself.
I watched the first presidential debate live and I believe that both men did a good job on what they were trying to get across to the American public. We as the audience that watches the news and listens to the media realize that each party is going to be biased and that each party is going to lean in their own direction and say that their candidate won the election. But what I can say is that each of the candidates had their strengths and flaws. In the article the McCain campaign said that Obama admitted that McCain was right many times meaning that McCain was stronger but I think Obama was just showing John McCain respect for being a successful Senator. I do think though that Obama should have connected John McCain to George W. Bush a lot more. On the other hand the Obama “camp” said that John McCain was as usual a not very fluent and smooth speaker. I agree that John McCain is not a “Barack Obama” at speaking but I do think that John McCain did a good job at the beginning of the debate of getting his point across and actually putting Barack in his place for a little bit. Either way I believe that the debate was great so that the American people could see more in depth about the candidates. Overall I believe that neither of them won the debate it was a wash.
I really don’t want to say this, but I think the real winner of this debate is McCain. Even the article that bolsters Obama states that McCain was more aggressive and domineering than Obama. This is true. He really did take control and left Obama trying meagerly to make amends and get ahead. But that’s all Obama did in the end was play catch up. It was hugely dissappointing to see such a great orator struggle with the debate. Though it’s understandable considering that his strength lies in his prepared speeches.
So in this instance, it’s safe to assume that McCain does have better experience concerning the debates and the topics used. That’s why he won. However, as stated in the McCain article, Obama won’t be making the same mistakes next time. He’s smart, he’ll learn from his mistakes. No more “He’s absolutely right”s from him. We hope. Else we’ll all be drunk and passed out on the floor.
I think it’s clear to the American people that McCain was the clear winner of the debate. All the hype about Obama’s speaking skills have led to his downfall this time around. So if the winner is the one who exceeded expectations, that was definitely McCain. I was actually kind of proud of him through out the duration of the debate. Only moments, though, just like with Obama. In my opinion, none of them really inspired me to vote one way or the other. But that’s why there are three debates, with the subsequent ones a grounds for the demonstration of experience gained from the former.
My bias to Barack Obama makes it harder to say who won or lost. I disagree with the first opinion by York that Obama too readily agreed with McCain. These two men are martyrs for change, and bipartisanship. When you have a situation like this, there are often going to be area’s of gray between the two candidates. York comments that, “…Obama was undeniably, and surprisingly, deferential…” Since when did being respectful count as a strange or negative thing in politics? It’s great that Obama willing to agree on issues that he held the same position with, and he didn’t just agree, he expanded. He made the general opinion into his own.
However, despite all of this, I would have to lean towards saying that McCain won. There wasn’t a lot of time spent on raising expectations for him, like there was for Palin at tonight’s debate. Even more than that, McCain was much more aggressive than I had expected. Although I don’t agree that Obama “let McCain control the discussion,” McCain did to a good job at clearly stating his opinions.
There was another part of the second article that I agree with as well though; this debate wasn’t a huge victory. “…there was nothing in this debate that was a knockout blow—nothing that should change the current trajectory of the campaign.”
The debate was a stalemate. There was no winner and there was no loser. It mimics the efficacy of the US government, gridlock, and no way to move around a law without jumping through hoops and appeasing a majority of the 535 congress members. Policies, opinions and every skeleton was drug out of the closet of both candidates. When confronted both candidates had excuses for their actions and stood beside them for the most part. Obama, in my opinion, was too conciliatory to McCain. His eight instances of saying McCain was right on something or another was a tad much for me. He should have stuck up for himself and found some flaw in McCain’s plan. I’m glad that these debates aren’t the deciding factor in the elections. There is too much room for spin and interpretation that every election would be Florida’s 2000 election reincarnated. People would be holding transcripts of the debates up to fluorescent lights trying to determine the true meaning of a statement made by a candidate and there would be reads and rereads and so many people would know the debate texts backwards and forwards that they would no longer be the words of the candidates but they would take on the meaning found in them by the often times biased transcript readers.
A debate is not the election, so I don’t think it matters who won. I have to applaud both candidates, however, on their performances. First of all, John McCain shows that he has done his homework- his performance was just like an FRQ: drop as many names as you possibly can to show off your accumulated knowledge over the past (How long’s it been that he’s been in the Senate? Oh yeah, TOO LONG.) years of Senate experience. It’s really nice that he knows the names of three past Soviet Union leaders, because you know that the names of Soviet Union leaders pertains to the crises we face in the world today. I think that John McCain proved that he is old and out of touch with America; he’s a wealthy politician. Not a real American. In contrast, I think Senator Obama did a pretty good job in the debate. He got torn down by Mr. York in his article, but I think agreeing with Senator McCain showed that Obama is really strong. Obama has the confidence, the brains, and lives close enough to reality to agree with what’s right and what’s true. If I’m a conservative and a liberal says that the sky is blue, I’m not going to disagree with him because he’s a liberal, that’s just ridiculous. (I’m going to disagree with him because conservatives can only see the color red.) But colorblindness is not the point: Obama wasn’t stupid enough to disagree with something that is factual. And it’s about time that politicians did that.
All in all I thought the debate went well. Both Obama and McCain did what they had to do. But I would agree with the opinion number one, that McCain definitely won this debate. He did seem to be on the offense the whole time, while it seemed like Obama was having to come up with points to (for lack of a better word) rebuttal him. At first I thought that it was strange how Obama kept conceding that McCain was right. But then I realized that if Obama truly does agree with McCain’s statements, why shouldn’t he say so. But maybe he could have done it in such a way that didn’t bluntly say, “Senator McCain is absolutely right.” I thought that maybe when the debate turned towards the subject of the economy (which is Obama’s strong point) McCain would start to falter and Obama would shine through. But this didn’t really happen. McCain still managed to stay in control of the debate, and I think that this will end up hurting Obama. People know that this is his area, and yet he let McCain walk all over him. I also like the way opinion 2 talked about the way McCain was more tactical while Obama was more strategical. It seems like in this instance, that Obama has a better vision of what direction the country should be going in, while McCain is just trying to make Obama look bad.
Debates are supposed to be won or lost, but sadly in my opinion there was no definite winner. McCain played his experience card very wisely. Obama also did well but may not have been quite aggressive enough. Obama flattered McCain eight times while McCain gave no flattery to Obama. Yet neither of these men made an outstanding impression. As the columnist states, “It will need to be digested, discussed around the water cooler and the dinner table. But the race has not been decided yet.” The way I see it, none of the American voters were ‘won over’ or ‘charmed’ by either of the candidates charisma or lack there of. The real decision is going to be made by those people who already know who they are voting for and aren’t still drifting. I was expecting to be amazed by this debate due to the times and the individuals involved in this competition to run the country we all live in. Unfortunately I was disappointed but I am very excited to see what the turn out of the election is going to be regardless of the FIRST debate. It is true what the quote said, “The race has not been decided yet.”
I’m pretty disappointed to have missed the debate on Friday, so I’m hoping to catch tonight’s vice presidential debate… After reading this article, I decided to look up different responses to this debate. Check out what I found most recently: “You get the sense in watching the polls that the presidential race may be on the brink of breaking toward Barack Obama. The independents and undecideds are beginning to make up their minds, and they’re going in Obama’s direction. By definition, the folks in the middle harbor doubts and suspicions about both candidates. In last week’s presidential debates, and in the posturing over the Wall Street economic crisis, Obama has seemed to get the better of that process” (seattlepi.com). It seemed pretty obvious that when it comes to the economy, Barack Obama is getting the majority vote from Americans. With any debate past or upcoming, individual candidate success depends not only on meeting standards, but also exceeding expectations. While most would consider Obama to be a very eloquent speaker, it only means that the bar is set much higher for him than McCain. With the debate tonight, Palin’s will be fighting pretty low expectations, which could either spell trouble or ultimate success.
I think we notice in this debate where extensive (I’m being gracious) experience transforms into a pathetic bull-dog, well along in human and dog years, suffering from hip problems. I am proud to find that, even after the anticipation of McCain mopping the floor with Obama at this first debate under the topic of Foreign Policy, Obama held his ground. McCain barely managed to pull off aggressive as Obama shot down most of the random and exaggerated offenses he threw at him. Then again, Obama played nearly the whole night on the defensive, often as the article says, even agreeing with McCain.
But I don’t’ really think there was a clear cut winner. Obama played it nice, I think hoping McCain would say dumber things than he did, so there was this kind of case of McCain merely firing unsupported claims and Obama would only defend them rather than ricochet some of the attacks. Certainly though, I think the fact that McCain didn’t win means instability in his campaign. Obama may have hid in a shell of protection in this debate, knowing it would be a tough one to win, but I’m positive he’s pullin’ out his own piece in the two upcoming debates…figuratively of course.
Before I address the question of who “won” the debate, I would like to point out the major statements that stuck a very large impression on me. On the long section of debate about the war in Iraq, Obama states that there have been 30,000 people injured/killed since 2003 when the war shifted out of Afghanistan and into Iraq. That is too many people! Weather this war was surged and finished off early, or as it has been prolonged out, it is definitely clear that the war needs to end and should be a very important issue to be solved by the next president. Currently, the economic downturn has received a lot of attention, as it should, but the issues with Iraq shouldn’t be overshadowed by it when we are currently spending ten billion dollars on the war every month! That is a huge amount of deficit that could be eliminated (with time of course), ultimately helping out our current situation with Wall Street. Any money we can save definitely won’t hurt, and it would save thousands of lives, too. The other statement from McCain that caught me off-guard was the statement about Pakistan and that the choices for military movement “shouldn’t be said out loud”. If you can’t say it out loud and admit it to your people, then you obviously know you are doing something the people will disapprove of. To put it into context, when mommy and daddy ask you if you have been out partying or doing something else you know they will disapprove of, most students would either not get into the situation to begin with, or they would lie. Because in their minds, who would honestly admit up front to doing something they know their parents wouldn’t approve of? This is exactly what McCain is portraying in this statement, and how can you trust someone who either lies, does not commit to the whole truth, or becomes involved in a situation that he knows many won’t approve of…so in order to avoid the consequences it is just easier for the republican party to not “say that out loud”.
However, McCain won the debate by his appearance and by exceeding expectations. He stated his policies very clearly and was persuasive in the respect that he enforced his support from conservatives. He interrupted Obama, exceeded time limits, and requested more time on certain topics to ensure that he got in everything he needed to say. Obama did not have this aggressiveness as consistently as McCain did-weather that is a good thing or not. However, Obama, also, did specify his policies and stated many statistics that trumped many of McCain’s statements. There are 2 more debates, and in the future I expect McCain to run out of things to talk about or to be repetitive, and I expect Obama to be more prepared for McCain’s aggressiveness, that he may counter-act that aggressiveness, and that he won’t let McCain get away with as many accusative statements as he did in this first debate.
This debate between McCain and Obama was a good debate and there was no clear winner in the debate. Both candidates displayed their own strengths, as stated in the article. It showed Obama has his strengths in the big issue at hand which was the economic issues as well as the Iraq issues. I found it interesting that as also pointed out in the article how McCain when in response to Obama would change Obama’s position or try to put words in his mouth. I also noticed that Obama had called McCain out on the big issues such as the economy and the War in Iraq but McCain was picking out all the minor details that people don’t really care about at this point in time. People right now are worried about their wallets and how they will keep their money if the stock market continues to fail or if they will have to work until they are 75 years old because social security and their retirement funds have been emptied out.
I am wondering why McCain kept changing Obama’s stand on certain issue after ““Were you afraid I couldn’t hear you?””? If McCain heard him what is with those changes in Obama’s views?
I totally disagree with the first option. I think that Senator Obama was not “playing Mr. Nice Guy”. He was simply showing that he did agree with Senator McCain on some issues. Yes, he said “your right” eight times but after each of those eight times he would tell how he was going to deal with that issue. “‘John is right we have to make cuts.’” Well that is just common sense. Just because McCain said it first doesn’t mean that Obama is playing Mr. Nice Guy and showing that McCain is right about the whole situation. Obama was just pointing out facts that he saw as agreeable. Not once did McCain agree with Obama. I think that this shows someone who is not willing to point out when his enemy is right.
Performance wise, I agree with this article that Obama did stumble a little. He was constantly stuttering and trying to get his words straight while McCain showed readiness and clearly spoke about what he wanted to. One thing that bugged me about McCain is that he was not willing to stop talking. Multiple times did Jim Lehrer try to move over to Obama or change the topic and McCain just kept running his mouth. I think that Lehrer should have been able to shut him up when he needed to be because there was a time limit and there was suppose to be a timed talking schedule.
As we have discussed in class, because the expectations for John McCain were so low in this debate, all he had to do was read through his notes without stumbling and he would do better than everyone thought. And it seems that he did even better than just paying attention to the teleprompters… He kept Barack Obama on his toes, with Obama conceding to McCain on several issues. McCain used this debate to highlight his strong points, especially on foreign policy. Using his experience overseas, McCain hit home when it came to showing off his foreign policy knowledge…leaving Obama in the dust. However, the next two debates will more adhere to Obama’s strong points, so we’ll see what he can do when he’s in his element. What interested me was that there was hardly a single mention to the fact that this debate might not have happened at all. What had been a big media ticket before the debate kind of fizzled down to non-existent. I guess both candidates moved on to bigger and better issues. Furthermore, I thought McCain played up his old age really well, hanging a lantern on his age and turning it into something against his opponent. Another thing that was important for his success was his announcing that he and Bush are not one and the same: that McCain still is the maverick he claims to be, not being influenced by Bush just because he has a R behind his name. In order for voters to even start to promote McCain, they need to get Bush out of their heads. In all, I think McCain settled for slightly over his low expected bar and at least surprised us for being able to get through this debate without a major blow up.
Of the two opinion pieces presented, I agree most with the second opinion. One thing that impressed me, in comparison between the two opinion pieces is the relative unbiased account of the author compared to the first opinion. Not only do I agree that Obama did better than McCain in the debate, I also agree it the debate would not change many minds because neither candidate made any major mistakes, which both parties were undoubtedly crossing their fingers for. Overall, Obama sounded clearer than McCain did, and frequently had to correct McCain for misstating his positions, which McCain did not do. John McCain frequently tried to hammer an issue, only have Obama speak up that it was not true, and give evidence to support it. That weakened McCain’s stances and also highlighted McCain’s aggressive behavior. However ,in all fair judgment, I would say that this debate was pretty much a tie, with Obama’s slight victory, if you want call it that, coming from his lowballed expectations and the fact he could keep up and argue his positions clearly against McCain on his strong area. That underlying significance can be interpreted to show that if Obama can debate McCain to a standstill on foreign policy, what will happen on a debate that is focus on an area that is a strong topic for Obama’s?
I found the 1st Presidential debate to be somewhat one sided. At the start it felt pretty even but once talk turned to Foreign Policy it was all McCain. It seemed to me like McCain was doing some showing off. He was constantly talking about his opinions on foreign policy and Russia and Iran. Obama got a few comments here and there but it was only because the moderator gave the floor to Obama. However, I don’t think McCain made enough of an effort to separate himself from Bush. He tried but he didn’t try hard enough in my opinion.
I think both arguments for who won are very valid and even though I thought it was one sided I don’t think the debate had a clear cut winner. Both the candidates had their strong times and their weak moments. Like Obama’s consent to McCain, “Obama answered weakly that yes, the 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.’” I think this weak moment for Obama was costly but McCain’s failed attempts at humor were even worse. His self appointed nickname “Miss Congeniality” was not a reference I would have used, Maverick sounds much better.
I think the next debate will be just as important for some people as this debate was only because this debate only solidified the Candidates positions on issues that people already knew about. I don’t think enough voters were affected by this debate, but we will see.
Hillary Susz Post:
Neither candidate presented an unarguable statement, or an unavoidable truth. Thus, neither Barack Obama nor John McCain seemed prominent in swaying moderate voters. However, I agree that “Obama emerged as a candidate who was at least as knowledgeable, judicious and unflappable as McCain on foreign policy … and more knowledgeable, and better suited to deal with the economic crisis and domestic problems the country faces.” This was more or less shocking considering foreign policy is placed high amongst McCain’s political strengths. Each of McCain’s avocations was tested brilliantly, almost flawlessly, by Senator Obama. For me, the highlight of the debate occurred when Senator McCain began explaining the meaning of a particular bracelet. McCain wears that bracelet to remind him of personal sacrifices towards one’s nation in times of war; and because of those sacrifices, McCain explained, we cannot pull out or Iraq, we cannot surrender, because United States soldiers shall not die in vain. Obama then remarked, “I wear a bracelet too,” only his bracelet symbolized personal loss, a moral subject that beautifully promoted his anti-war ideals.
Obama, for the majority of the debate, was full of wonderful counterarguments, and when he wasn’t, he admitted it. Obama agreed with McCain eight times! Whether these agreements prove strategic or not remains to be seen.