Debate Season Begins: McCain V. Obama
2008
September
26
Here is your chance to share your thoughts on tonight’s debate. This is also your chance to pump up your favorite candidate in the context of this debate.
Let’s hear it, what did you think?
Please avoid talking negatively about either candidate, but instead talk about what the candidates did well.
Update: My quick take now that I’ve watched it.
- Neither candidate answered anything about the economy in its current state. They both just talked the differences between top down and bottom up economics which would reflect both of their plans. This is everyone’s most important issue, so I’m surprised neither was strong here.
- In the context of our world today, I don’t see why Obama having a desire to talk to anyone is a big deal. This is no reason to vote for him, but I don’t see why McCain is making this a big deal other than to paint him as “dangerous”…which he said over 5 times.
said: 
said: 
said: 
said: 
said: 
said: 
Tyler Braun.
Overall I thought it was pretty boring and didnt set either of them apart or in a different light on the campaign trail.
I think McCain did slightly better because he clearly had the most experience when he talked about each of the issues…often citing cities and leaders that he has PERSONALLY known or worked with in the past.
Yeah I don’t think they said anything different than they’ve said before.
I agree. I didn’t hear anything new and got bored. I kept waiting for something to happen, especially since Leherer kept trying to get them to brawl (“say it directly to him! I’m going to get you guys to talk to each other…”) I guess a debate about foreign policy is a good warm-up, but on the flip side, if it had been something more interesting more people might be inclined to watch the upcoming ones. I’m afraid that too many people thought it was a waste of time and won’t watch anymore.
yeah, it was one of the most uneventful debates I can remember watching. I think that most of us already know what we’re gonna get from each of these candidates. In fact, I think the VP debates will be much more interesting…
… as interesting as a political debate can be, that is.
Good point. I think most people expect Biden to “win” the debate (however that is done) because of his political experience (whether that be good or bad)…so if it is even considered close (again, not knowing how anyone “grades” these things) then I would think Palin did herself a lot of good.
Tyler
The problem with having high level discusions w/ Iran “without preconditions”, as Obama stated earlier in the campaign, is it will strengthen Ahmadinejad and give his government legitimacy, especially in that region. This is a regime that has openly expressed the destruction of Israel, and has done so as recently as last week. As long as they hold that position (not to mention several others, such as the state-sponsored terrorism, nuclear ambitions, civil rights, and more), holding high level talks is not only fruitless, but counter-productive if your aim is to bring to power in Iran a new, and reasonable leader, who isn’t going to exterminite Jews if he had his way.
When this came out late last year, Obama’s retort was that “we shouldn’t be afraid to talk to our enemies”, and used Kennedy’s talks w/ Khrushchev as an example. But those talks were a disaster for Kennedy, and led directly to the Cuban-missle crisis soon after, thereby underminding Obama’s point entirely. That is, when a leader is your enemy, high level talks that don’t include solid premises (i.e Preconditions) put in place before starting those negotiations, they are bound to backfire, or at the very least, provide that leader additional clout that makes the job of changing their behavior that much tougher.
Is this not obvious? It’s precisely this kind of naivete’ that makes people nervous about an Obama administration, and how it will execute its foreign policy.
Many valid points there Kirk.
I would say that one example of how this idea has gone bad before isn’t really precedence that it always would or will. My thought behind what I said is that our world is much much smaller today than in previous elections. Each day the internet makes our world smaller. I could have a strong friendship with anyone from almost any country.
Simply talking to a leader from any country doesn’t have to be a bad thing. This idea of not talking promotes an idea of elitism which is why I think America has become more and more hated. We have this idea that we are better that you so you’ll have to meet our expectations before we’ll have any relationship with you. I don’t think this mindset works in a postmodern world. I’m not trying to be pro-Obama…just raising a point.
Thanks Tyler
I understand your point. No doubt our world feels much smaller these days. The advent of the net has pulled the far corners of the world into the same chat room. However, we’re not talking about distant friendships here, but instead, the leaders of our world who will dictate what the future holds for not only Americans, but Iranians, and everyone else. Keep in mind that “talking” is always going on.. only at lower levels. We haven’t shut off channels with Iran, but if their leaders are going to hold such extreme views, up to and including wiping countries off of maps, then lending credibility to those views by having Obama or any other president break bread with those guys becomes a tacit endorsement of what they believe. It says to the world, we may not agree with you, but it’s not so bad that we won’t negotiate. When South Africa was an Apartheid government, one of the main tactics to get them to change thier policy was ostracizing them in the same way. The day those lower level discussions result in a change of heart by the Iranians is the day those presidential-level negotiations start getting planned. That I’m sure of.
As to your point about the world’s mindset concerning America and us being “better than others”, and “elitist”, is more dificult to explain.
First of all, I don’t agree that this is necessarily the case. In the coffee bars of Paris, absolutely. In the media outlets over there, such as the BBC.. no doubt about it. But there are also many people, and governments that look to the US for direction and leadership.
Sometimes decisions get made that are not popular on the streets, but in the end, with the clarity of hindsight, were cleary the right thing to do. We took big time heat fighting Communism in Europe. Time after time, “America the Cowboy” was said, and many wanted to appease the Soviets. But with 50 million newly free’d people in Eastern Europe who can attest, it was no doubt the right policy.
I also think that no matter what the US does; no matter what policies are made; no matter who’s president, there will always be a strong voice of dissent concerning America. The reasons for this are complex, and there’s lots of mixed emotions going on, but I think a big part of it is simply human nature, and it’s compensity for petty jealousy, and a ‘knock the guy off at the top’ mentality. We cannot drive our belief system, and policy around what some guy in Europe might think about it. I know this is a tough one for many people, and I know the Left has used this line of reasoning to further their quest for power, but we have to keep our eye on following truth, doing the right thing, and our core values, even if that leads our foreign policy into terrain that will not be well received.
I know I’m late to the conversation, but loved this entire thread … couldn’t have said it better myself than the way Kirk expressed it. And I’m confident there are many more examples of leaders meeting at high levels lending legitimacy to corrupt or tyrannical governments. If only I had time to sit and look up history facts all day ….