Debate showed McCain's ideas stuck in last century

While watching the debate, I was reminded of the phrase "I have seen the future..." And it's not John McCain! Photo of vitrine, Selfridges, London.

I stayed up until 6 a.m. watching the presidential debates and post-debate commentary. In a nutshell, my impressions were that Sen. John McCain's ideas belong solely to the previous century. He still sees the same old enemies and wants to restart a Cold War with Russia. He maintains the isolationist viewpoint of not speaking to or negotiating with our enemies - even though five former secretaries of state including Henry Kissinger have all said it's a mistake to pursue such isolationist tactics. Such strategies have failed; the only way problems can be solved is by establishing dialogue with the antagonists. Nobel Peace Prize winner and former President Jimmy Carter agrees dialogue is necessary. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair concurs.

McCain refuses to admit he was wrong about war in Iraq and still clings to the notion that we are "winning" and will be "victorious" in leaving behind a country enjoying "peace and prosperity." McCain doesn't even understand the key players in Iraq and its complicated history that threatens to undermine its future. And funny how McCain didn't mention he knows where bin Laden is and how to get him, as he recently claimed (but when pressed, declined to offer specifics).

From a New York Times editorial:

"It was disturbing to see that Mr. McCain seems to have learned nothing from the disastrous war in Iraq. He talked about recent progress there, which is indisputable, and his support for the troop surge that has brought down violence. But Mr. McCain still was talking about winning, rather than how he was going to plan a necessary and responsible exit. And he steadfastly refused to acknowledge that the decision to invade Iraq was an enormous mistake.

"Mr. Obama offered no details on how he plans to get out of Iraq, but he offered an important truth when he said that the United States should never have invaded and can never win in Afghanistan as long as it is tied down in Iraq."

The Los Angeles Times:

"It was a debate, mostly civil though occasionally cranky, between a tough old man and a polished young one. McCain revealed more of himself in that arena, wincing and grimacing during the split-screen shots while Obama was speaking.

"That dynamic threaded its way through the emotional highlights of the event. Time and again, McCain, who is 72 and would be the oldest man ever elected to a first term, condescended to Obama, who is 47 and one of the youngest ever to win his party's nomination. "He doesn't understand," McCain said repeatedly. Discussing Obama's willingness to engage in talks with Iran without preconditions, McCain said: "It isn't just naive. It's dangerous."

"Obama declined to be belittled. Although McCain refused to address him directly -- despite encouragement from moderator Jim Lehrer -- Obama looked at and spoke to McCain. Obama often credited McCain on issues -- a grace that was not reciprocated -- but he did not accept the role of junior candidate."

McCain was in turn, agitated, angry, sneering, smirking and/or condescending and contempuous. He refused to make any eye contact with Sen. Obama. McCain acted as though he had something to hide. He bragged about being a maverick, although his muddled ideas and erractic behaviour lately show he's anything but. And of course he brought up his war service, as though that excuses everything else.

Sen. Obama came across as calm, measured, diplomatic and presidential - all skills that are needed in the realities of the world today. He had clear answers for all McCain's assertions, real or false.

In a foreign policy debate, it seemed to me that too many issues were left out - no discussion of the Israeli-Palestian peace process (which McCain has said he will ignore); Africa, Latin America or South America and little discussion of China or Russia.

Even though fact checkers and independent economists repeatedly have proved McCain's claim wrong, McCain again lied, saying Obama has voted to increase taxes on people making as little as $42,000. Why does McCain persist in lying, when everyone knows he's lying? This calls his character into question. McCain also repeated misleading lines about earmark spending - something his vice-presidential running mate is well familiar with, having been an earmark queen as governor of Alaska.

And where was McCain's flag pin "proving his patriotism," that the Republicans keep going on about? Such a ridiculous talking point, yet the Republicans keep flogging it.

Some polls and pundits' reactions here. What's your opinion of the debate?

P.S. Before McCain even announced he would go ahead with the debate, his campaign released an ad proclaiming "McCain wins debate!" Unluckily for him, numerous post-debate polls show otherwise.

Comments

[Rosa]

Finally, we were able to see the two, side by side, and make some notes on their demeanor. I truly wonder why McCain would not look Obama in the eye. That made me very uncomfortable. Ready for Thursday--unless that one is canceled for some unknown reason.

[rochambeau]

MUST CONTINUE TO PRAY FOR OUR PRES OBAMA!!!
xox
COnstance

[SandyV]

Tara--Let's take bets on how the McCain campaign tries to cancel or derail the Palin/Biden debate next week. I'm sure they are quaking in their plaid slippers after watching her performance with Katic Couric. I see this kind of nonsense all the time on essay exams when students don't know what the #*(@& the answer is and just try to write something, anything, hoping they will hit something meaningful. We all know the word for that! While Mr. McCain keeps saying that Barack doesn't have the experience to lead, he insists that Sarah is ready now. God help us!

[Colette]

I was up half the night too. I think the whole world knows by now that Obama won the debate. I watched those little moving lines on the bottom of the screen: very telling!

The problem is that anyone who think McCain did well, did NOT listed to Obama when he was speaking. And, forgive me, but these are not people who can read body language either. These are people who mistake opinion for fact; who think sneering and lies and smirking and ill-mannered behavior are signs of "strength" (what will most be remembered from this first debate is that McCain never once looked Obama in the eye). They are patently not. T

The question is do people want an intelligent, measured, well-mannered, well-informed, well-spoken, one who THINKS before he ACTS with his finger on the button? Or do they want an irritable, my-way-of-the-highway-even-if-destroy-you McCain. If you want any more proof, readers, check out the Vietnam Veterans Against McCain, where they have chapter and verse, not pie in the sky.

McCain is not a maverick -- that term has now been changed forever to mean: I go off and do my own thing regardless of whether it is a good thing for you. And I won't apologize for being wrong--ever. So far it's been mostly bad things.

Obama won the debated hand-down. My eyes were open, and so were my ears, and I am an intelligent person, biased only for Truth and Balance.

[Yoi]

Tara, we nearly had a divorce over the debate. My husband stated how naive Obama is and I told him, how out of touch McCain is with the world. I think that people will see the debate and it will not do one bit to change their minds. It is sad.

[alissa]

I simply couldn't get over McCain's smugness, with all of the bitter and sarcastic smiles. Also, his malevolence is clear by how many times Obama had to cut in to say "that's not true" and then try to clarify or dispute McCain's comments, wasting time that Obama should have had to speak freely. 1h22m in is especially painful.

You may be interested in the video + transcript on the NYT site:
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/first-presidential-debate.html

[rel]

Tara,
I'm continually amazed at how two people can view the same thing and come away with completely opposite impressions.
rel

Tara responds:
If you have different views, why don't you explain them?