I Condescend to Write a Quick Debate Post-Mortem
As a symptom of the constriction of elite opinion, the debate was instructive less for the answers than even the questions. “Foreign policy” consists of wars and nothing but wars. It’s about whom you bomb or don’t, and whom you do or don’t convince to help you bomb someone. Does anyone among our rulers think “foreign policy” might have anything to do with handling the current financial crisis? Resource issues? Generally promoting peace and prosperity? Who knows?
Obama failed to hit McCain on his opposition to Jim Webb’s GI Bill. He let McCain use the “bear DNA” line without coming back with Palin’s harbor-seal research. On the other hand, Obama had his speech hesitation under control most of the night.
Overall, Grandpa Simpson acquitted himself pretty well. Given how crappily his campaign has gone the last two weeks, that probably counts as a win for him. (The live question is whether McCain’s sheer ungraciousness will turn people off.) But I find it hard to believe the next debates will go as well for him.
UPDATE: No-longer-liveblogging by Mrs. Offering, professional political person. Contributions from most of the personnel at Unqualified World Headquarters, regardless of foot-count, included.
Comment by Nell —
September 26, 2008 @ 11:42 pm
Obama failed to hit McCain on his opposition to Jim Webb’s GI Bill.
Again. This seems like such a giant gimme, especially with all McCain’s mawkishness about veterans.
Comment by Avram —
September 27, 2008 @ 2:27 am
Ms Offering saw a much livelier debate than I did.
Comment by Tom Scudder —
September 27, 2008 @ 8:52 am
So I wonder if anyone’s going to ask McCain whether the current financial crisis etc. means that he needs to scale back his expensive plans for the American military.
Comment by Jim Henley —
September 27, 2008 @ 9:56 am
Tom, the irony is, McCain was the only guy who suggested a little fiscal discipline on the military side. Granted, it was only “wastefraudandabuse” talk, and he pointedly wanted to exclude military spending from his budget freeze when military spending needs to FALL rather than rise.
Comment by diana —
September 27, 2008 @ 10:27 am
Jim,
Perhaps I’m speaking from partisanship here, but I think Obama won simply by being gracious, deferential to the age and “experience” of his opponent, and stating his answers as crisply as he could. (Yes, speech hesitations included. I think people are reasonably generous about that.)
McCain came off like a vicious old geezer who had to be brought there kicking and screaming. Have people already forgotten the context – he tried to pull a stunt and failed.
Of course, I share your frustration at the narrowness of the questioning, and the assumptions that they carry. But I think that enough people are “getting” the idea that Obama is a guy who resorts to using reason before force, and that McCain is the opposite. That might have been a killer to Obama had he run in 2004, but things have changed a bit.
Look, you are not going to see a massive swing to Obama as a result of these debates. I think the effect is more subtle. The debates will underscore the fact that McCain is unstable, unhealthy, and has chosen an unprepared dingbat to be his VP. This is my hope, at least.
Comment by Monte Davis —
September 27, 2008 @ 10:53 am
No, Jim, there’s more to foreign policy: it’s also about who you sit across the table from and therefore “legitimize.” You see, neither Americans nor foreigners are capable of forming any judgment about Iran based on its history, location, size, economy, ideology, military capability, leadership, etc. No — all that matters is whether Maverick Man deigns to go one-on-one with Ahmedinejad.
Obama’s response w/r/t precondition vs preparation was fine as far as it went, but I wish he’d swung for the fence:
“John, sorry but it’s not all about you, or me, or summit meetings. I know (and I hope you know when you’re not striking poses) that a summit is always the culmination of a lot of lower-level meetings, which determine the preconditions for the summit. So cut the crap: are you willing to start that process, as six SofS’s have urged, or not?”
Comment by the talking dog —
September 27, 2008 @ 3:50 pm
Monte, I believe the expression is “cut the bulls***”. At least, to McCain it is.
Also, “the earmarks” were a wonderful non-sequitur, representing at $18B as they do, around 1/2 of 1% of mere “discretionary spending” of around $600B, which in turn is only around 20% of a federal budget of around $3,000B (or $3T). McC notes O’s earmarks just under a billion for a massive population center like IL, while ignoring how many his running mate’s state of AK received (with her blessing). All in all, a nice non-sequitur.
Neither man all that comfortable in the economics sphere, of course. But yes, Obama came off as more gentlemanly, and the few undecideds yet– for whom substance is just not important– go for that sort of thing. Or so we’re told.