where the writers are
My take on the debate

It was fun to watch. Especially in HD.

It showed that both men are basically nice and wannabe healthy guys. Honestly I think either one will make a fine president. Here's my take on the debate:

  1. McCain clearly understands the politics of war better than Obama.
  2. McCain clearly has more experience and bigger ties to important people.
  3. McCain used a lot more rhetoric than Obama.
  4. McCain also attacked Obama with a lot more negative interpretation of Obama's past statements. (This is called lying where I come from, but I understand its quite common in politics. Sometimes it was a sincere misunderstanding, but usually I think McCain knew he was not correctly interpreting Obama's words).
  5. Obama must have devoted a great deal of time to practicing his interactive speaking because his debating / question answering skills have gone up an order of magnitude. He had very few ums and awes. I was extremely impressed with his ability to tighten his focus. He gets the "most improved campaign" award.
  6. McCain never looked Obama in the eyes until the very end. That says a lot, but I can't be certain exactly what it means. In general I only know its not a good thing.
  7. McCain said, "that's not true" only a few times (if at all). Obama said it many times.
  8. Obama built a bridge between himself and McCain many times throughout the night by using phrases like "I agree with Senator McCain ..." and "I have to give Senator McCain credit ..." McCain not only failed to look his opponent in the eyes, he failed to connect with him in any way until the hand shake at the end. This shows Obama is a much better diplomat.
  9. Obama was cool and calm throughout, much cooler and calmer than McCain.

I saw from the very beginning that Obama was going to "win" the debate. My favorite moment came after McCain implied that Obama had voted against funding the troops in Iraq. Obama put that issue to rest by explaining it so well that McCain couldn't bring it up again and look rational. Obama squashed most of McCain's attacks the same way he did the whole funding issue. He said that the issue was not funding the troops, it was the time table. He said that both senators had voted against funding the troops: McCain when there was a timetable and himself when there wasn't. He brought the real issue to the surface and that stood out as an indication of his honesty.

Over and over McCain attacked Obama. Perhaps that's why he couldn't look him in the eyes. Perhaps if he'd looked Obama in the eyes he'd lose his nerve and become the John McCain that I know, the guy he's been dropping piece by piece along his presidential trail since January (or perhaps its that his party has been hatcheting off these pieces). The only good thing about dropping himself piece by piece is that after he loses (that's my prediction) he'll be able to follow the trail of pieces back to himself. I hope he chooses that route.

Obama never attacked McCain, he attacked McCain's position. Do you see the difference? Obama pointed out where McCain voted and showed the differences between them, following the lead of the moderator. This shows Obama's basic honesty.

Until this debate I was convinced that if it weren't for the Republican Party, John McCain would make a better President. Now I'm not so sure. Obama's ability to rise to an occasion cannot be ignored. He has done an outstanding job re-imagining himself as President.

The Republicans destroyed McCain's chances when they decided to control him. Once I saw that the party was in control, I realized that we can't vote Republican. That's because the Republican party has become, in my opinion, "The Imperialists Party."

The Democrats are still whiny, wannabe super heroes, but at least they aren't as manipulative as the Republicans. At least they aren't driven by the mighty dollar. They still seek to control, but at least its because they think they can make us better.

I know I won't vote for McCain. Right now I wish there was a third candidate I could vote for. I'm seriously tired of bipartisan politics.

Comments
4 Comment count
Comment Bubble Tip

The debate was fun to watch Sept 27

It is refreshing to see a blog entry that shows that we at least saw the same debate, though we differ in some views. To wit, if it is a lie where you come from, and it is a lie where I come from, doesn't that pretty much paint Senator McCain as a liar? Politics is the science of distortion, yes, but when facts are knowingly misrepresented, well, that's just plain lying.

President Bush has done it habitually, Darth Vader, I mean, the vice president, has done it mercilessly; John McCain is doing it desperately. I agree that the Republicans cannot be given the shovel again, now that we're in so deeply.

I did not, however, see a Senator McCain that could by any stretch "make a fine president." His temper flared, repeatedly. His dislike of his opponent was easy to read. He has been a lot of places and met a lot of people. He's an effective advocate for some causes. What he is not, and has never been, is effective at leading people who don't agree with him toward solutions that benefit them as well as those who do agree with him. He is as divisive as George W. Bush, and as inflexible. His selection of a running mate was rebellious toward his party leadership, rather than carefully considered. Indeed, he is hypocritical in his "pro life" politics, as he would have had Tom Ridge, a "pro choice" governor, as his running mate had it been allowed. He was loyal when it was politicially necessary, and "a maverick" without effectively leading his own party away from the debacle they are now esconced in. That's politics, too. It's just not leadership.

Senator Barack Obama did well in the debate, and I agree he has much to learn, yet. I submit that he is capable of filtering information from advisors, and of selecting them on the basis of expertise rather than simply of politics. What he already has shown us is a presidential dignity and caution that conservatives might well envy. He is the better applicant for the job of President, and I see no need for a third choice. He will make a fine president, and I hope we all get the chance to see it.

Comment Bubble Tip

McCain good, Imperialist Party not good

Thanks for the thoughtful comments.

I have a problem with demonification of individuals. No matter how much VP Cheyney seems like he's identified with the demons of mind, he's still a human being and deserves our respect.

That being said, we have every right to question his actions and attitudes.

When I look at McCain I see a guy who tries really hard to do the right thing. I think he's just made a lot of mistakes. Haven't we all?

When I said he'd make a fine president I should have added one caveat. He'd be working for the New Republican Party which I've dubbed, "The Imperialist Party" and that would make his presidency a sham, just like GW's is a sham. By himself, a good president. Under the thumb of the IP, perhaps not so good.

We can measure the man not only by whom he surrounds himself with but also by how he uses their feedback. In my opinion the Imperialist Party has turned these men into puppets. These men have allowed their advisers to drive them. Instead of making decisions on their own, they yield to their advisers.

It seems the advisers want money and power and that's all they care about. They work for big oil and big business, and want to manipulate the system so they can win some game they play.

I think John McCain really cares about the people, but he's given up too much of himself to actually represent us. That's why I won't vote for him, because of the people that surround him. I like the man, but not his friends.

Its kinda like old school days when you befriend a kid who is cool when they are alone but absolute jerks when surrounded by others. Its as if peer pressure matters more than relationship health.

Comment Bubble Tip

Respect but vilify

Thanks for the observations.  I like John McCain, though I'm not as confident in his abilities as you seem to be.  I agree, in the context of his party and his advisors he's not the same man, not the cool populist that has spoken up for the rest of us when the political parties forgot about us.

I think it's funny that you're willing to stamp an entire political party as Imperialist, yet object to using a negative about an individual.  The humor for me in referring to Dick Cheney as Darth Vader is in the depth of the metaphor.  Weilding power as a satrap in the service of one social and economic class against the vast majority, in a democracy.  Weilding power in a way that engenders fear and promises retaliation for the smallest perceived disloyalty or failure, while upholding a failed 'emperor'.  Excuse me, what is Imperial?  What is Imperialist?  a metaphor for, among other things, Darth Vader's employer.

 Honestly, I'm sorry that the neoconservative elite faction of the Republican Party has managed to assume control to such an extent that the rest of the country thinks that IS the Republican Party.  The sorry chaos of the Democratic Party is a dirge for another day.  I can vote for Obama, because I believe he is new enough on the scene to still have his own vision, conservative enough to move forward with caution, and liberal enough to move in what I think is the right direction.  He seems able to incorporate others input with intelligence and diplomacy.  

Yes, as human beings I respect them all.  I just don't believe they all deserve neutrality or personal regard. 

May we continue to be blessed with public servants of intelligence and vision.

Comment Bubble Tip

True Republican != Imperialist

Good point on the vilification of the party. I don't actually see the whole Republican Party as Imperialists, just the ones who are in control. You're right about the correlation between Darth and Dick's behaviors too.

One thing that bugs me about this whole two party system is there isn't a single party that has the same ideals as me. There isn't a party that represents me.

On the one hand is the Republicans, who under normal circumstances are fiscally conservative. I too am fiscally conservative. The Democrats aren't fiscally conservative under normal circumstances. (currently the Reps are making the Dems seem fiscally conservative).

When it comes social views I'm liberal. I believe as long as no one gets hurt, let people do what they want to. That lines up with the Democrats but in general not the Republicans.

Who am I supposed to vote for?