jeffwinget.com

I’ve never tried this, so here we go.  (I haven’t proofread this at all.  It’s just my thoughts as the debate rolled on.)  Enjoy.

1st Question: Where do you stand on the $700,000,000,000 bailout?

Obama:

I like his four protections that must be protected in an economic plan.  I wish he hadn’t taken a swipe at Bush–it’s  a tired line.  I agree with him that the economy should be judged by the well being of the middle class, but I don’t necessarily believe that more regulation is the answer.  I think these companies should be allowed to fail, that the market demands that those who take risks in speculative business have a chance to lose it all.  These companies should face that.  I do, however, think that some protections of consumers need to be put in place.  I’m not sure what those are yet, and I haven’t heard a proposal that I like.

McCain:

McCain opens up with a touting of bi-partisanship.  I hope that he’ll actually bring that to the White House if he is elected.  Honestly, I don’t think that him going to Washington to “negotiate” helped solve the crisis at all.  It would have happened with or without him.  I think it’s a dumb political move to keep bringing it up.

Back and forth:

Obama needs to get specific about what regulations were “shredded” and what new regulations he would like to put forth.  This issue needs specifics.  McCain is lacking the same specifity on his discussion of accountablity.  Whom does he want to hold accountable?  The companies?  The consumers?  The lawmakers?  There is more than enough blame to go around.  Who needs to take responsibility?

Obama is going to hammer McCain’s statement on the “fundamentals of the economy” being strong.  I want to hear both sides explain that more.

They’re not debating…they are spouting platitudes.  Yuck!

2nd Question: Are there fundamental differences between your economic plans?

McCain:

Curb spending in Washington!!  Hallelujah!

Wait, how are you going to veto every spending bill without a line-item veto, Senator?  There is no way you can do it.

Obama:

No more tax cuts to just the wealthy!!  How marvelous!

I was going to smart off about his lack of detail, but he actually gave some: give tax breaks to working Americans because they are the consumers who help grow the economy and they are the ones struggling through the economic crisis.  That’s a pretty good start.

The fundamental difference between their plans is that Obama’s is bottom up (or at least middle up) and McCain’s is top down.  Top down doesn’t work as currently constituted, and the free market won’t solve everything if it’s not really a free market (which it’s not–not even close, but that’s a whole other post), so I think Obama’s plan is stronger, but if we don’t cut Washington spending, neither idea will work.

Back and forth:

I love that they’re actually arguing.  This is what a debate is supposed to be.  The main issue that I take out of this exchange is another difference between the candidates: McCain would rather have no bill (like the energy bill he voted against) than a bill with something he disagrees with in it; Obama seems more disposed to compromise (again, the energy bill, Obama’s defense of voting for it was interesting).  Principles are good, but letting idealism get in the way of progress isn’t.  McCain almost sounds too stuborn to be president.  If he vetos every bill that he has some kind of beef with, nothing will ever get done.

3rd Question: What will you give up to help pay for the financial rescue?  (Great question!!)

Obama:

I like how he flipped the question into a positive.  He didn’t say what he would cut; he discussed what he wouldn’t cut.  His four things are good: energy independence, health care, education, and infrastructure.  I would like to know what programs he would cut, but I’m happy with his focus although I’d like to hear more specifics.

McCain:

He threw out the “liberal” as a pejorative card–another tired argument.  He supports oil subsidies, but not ethanol subsidies…ouch!  He also threw out the national security argument without mentioning all the waste that has come from the defense department…oh yeah, and they are still fighting a costly and wasteful war in Iraq.

Back and forth:

Good follow-up by Lehrer, challenging them to dig deeper into what changes they would actually make.  I like Obama’s dig on the subsidies for private insurers.  If we’re going to have a national health care system as an entitlement (Medicare/Medicaid), why are we subsidising private companies to do the same thing?  McCain’s proposal of a spending freeze is indicative of what he has done for the past two weeks in his campaign, that is look for the most forceful, extreme solution possible and go for that.  He can’t criticize Obama’s liberalness as extreme and then propose a more extreme solution.  That’s not going to help him at all.  Obama’s response about using a hatchet when we need a scalpal is good.  After that exchange, both candidates got specific for a minute, refreshing.

After Lehrer’s follow-up, Obama continued to get specific about what values we should protect in spending cuts.  McCain’s response seemed canned, lacked specifics, and resorted to “Obama’s a liberal and won’t cut spending” instead of specifics.  Obama used the word “orgy” heh heh heh (funny Beavis).

4th Question: What are the lessons of Iraq?

McCain:

He keeps saying that he’s a leader, a maverick, and not “Miss Congeniality,” but he’s not getting specific.  He seems to subscribe to the Bush method of debating: don’t give any specifics, and you can’t get hammered about them.  McCain’s support of Bush on the war in Iraq is going to hurt him.  He can say that he was a leader on things, but he just followed Bush around on the issue of the war.  That’s not leadership, captain.

Obama:

He needs to hammer how much money this war is costing.  If McCain wants to talk about cutting spending, he needs to take heat about the war in Iraq.

Back and forth:

All the arguments on Iraq are tired and overused.  It’s not about winning or losing anymore.  It’ not about whether or not we should have gone in.  It’s about how we’re going to end it without totally destabilizing the region.  Neither one is really talking about that.  Since they’re not, I don’t really have a lot to say, except for *yawn*.

P.S.- I think Obama smacked down McCain pretty hard on this point.

5th Question: Should more troops be sent to Afganistan?

Obama:

Good answer.  Very comprehensive and detailed.  I agree with his assessment and strategy.

McCain:

I agree with his assessment too, but I worry when we try to say what the intentions of terrorists are (like McCain saying what that bombing was meant to convey to the Pakistani government).

Back and forth:

For essentially agreeing on the issue, they are sure finding a lot to argue about.  I guess that’s okay, but they could just say, “I think that we fundamentally agree on this issue, and we should work together to make it happen.”  I guess that’s too hard to do.  However, McCain needs to quit using already discredited attacks against Obama.  They make him look stupid.  Attack with facts, not already debunked lies.

The Pakistan issue is interesting, and I honestly don’t know enough about it to comment much.

McCain’s story about the bracelet is touching, but irrelevent.  Obama’s follow-up was excellent, and very relevent.  He attacked McCain’s judgement and temperence.  McCain replied by being mean and sarcastic; that isn’t how to sure up your record on temperence.  Ooops!

6th Question: What should we do about Iran?

McCain:

I don’t like the words “existential threat.”  They are overused in today’s political discourse.  After listening to McCain, I think that he would be a great Secretary of Defense, but he’s too hawkish to be president.  However, his idea of a “league of democracies” to put economic pressure on Iran is a good one and should be something that we look into.

Obama:

I’ve said for a year that the real winners in Iraq are the Iranians.  Obama agrees.  He also has a good point that any sanctions will need the support of Russia and China.  I also like how is touting the idea of diplomacy.

Back and forth:

McCain can bash diplomacy, but it is sorely, sorely needed.  Sitting down with people who disagree with you doesn’t “legitimize” anything.  It shows a willingness to solve problems without violence.  Obama is handling this issue very well.  He looks more moderate, more level-headed, and more qualified to lead than McCain on this issue and on Iraq.  I love the point that diplomacy strengthens our position with our allies if negotiations fail.

Obama easily wins this point as well.

7th Question: Russia?

Obama:

Good response.

McCain:

His response sounds like Obama’s.  They seem to be agreeing and arguing about it quite a bit on some issues.  I don’t get that.

Back and forth:

Obama pointed out that they agree.  Great, move to the next question.  Nevermind, Obama shifted the focus to energy and has brought up some good points.  McCain says off-shore drilling is a “bridge”; I say it’s a band-aid, and a small one at that.

8th Question: Odds of another 9/11?

McCain:

His “safer than we were the day after 9/11″ answer was pretty dumb.  Also, I feel like McCain could be a much stronger voice against torture, and I don’t think that he’s done nearly enough to stop it.

Obama:

His argument about perception and standing in the world is strong, and I’d like to hear him push it more.

Back and forth:

I only saw the tracker on the bottom of the CNN coverage drift into the negative a few times.  When McCain tried to say that Obama wants us to fail in Iraq, the tracker went way into the negative.  The audience’s bullshit sensor works as well as mine.  They know that McCain is mischaracterizing Obama’s plan, and if he continues to do it throughout the campaign, he will lose.

Obama brought the issue back to the economy and how the economy leads to security and strength.  Excellent answer.  McCain shot back with an attack on Obama’s experience and not a substantive counter-argument.  He’s worn that line of reasoning out.  The tracker shot back into the negative; even the Republican line was in the negative…ouch.

Overall, I thought Obama won the debate handily.  He seemed comfortable, calm, and composed.  His answers to questions showed a good temperement and judgement that are qualities needed in a president.  It was a fun debate to watch.