Rotten Little Girls

So we have debate number 2. The general consensus is that John McCain lost because he didn’t win; so Barack Obama won by default?

I don’t rely too much on polls, but it seems that McCain had to knock Obama out in this one just to regain an even balance. I did think Obama focused on the issues and gave specific examples of his policies, but I honestly wasn’t extremely impressed by either candidate (check out their report cards).  I felt as if the debate evolved into a bickering match over records, policies, and of course, character. We had McCain talking about the “candies and goodies” used to entice Senators such as “that one” (Obama) into voting for certain bills, and then we had Obama talking about how McCain has been “cheerleading” Bush through the war (although I have to admit, I did laugh on that last one). There seemed to be too much of a back and forth, with each pointing out the hypocritical voting records of the other – I ended up not knowing what was the truth and what was a crock of crap.

Not to mention the snide comments about time constraints. Yes, Obama talked a lot, so much so that he often went over the time limit. Honestly, I know there are time limits imposed for a reason, and the campaigns previously agree to them in the name of fairness. But at the same time, is it really necessary to keep to the 90 minute time frame? This is the presidential election for Christ’s sake, and I would hope that the candidates have enough to say to make the debate longer than a feature film. I like Obama as a debater for firmly yet politely emphasizing his stance instead of being shut up and sat down by a clock. McCain seemed as if he was brown nosing not only the moderator but also the audience: “I am going to stop, and you didn’t even have to wait,” McCain told moderator Tom Brokaw at one point. Good job, Johnny, you showed us Americans that you can follow the same rules they institute into beauty pageants…hmm, Sarah Palin has taught you a lot.

Still, there were a lot of important points brought up despite the childish bickering. One aspect of the debate that I found particularly interesting was the discussion of the Iraq War and the Vietnam War. One audience member at the town hall asked a question about whether or not the U.S. should go into countries neighboring Iraq, which was a tactic considered during the Vietnam War. In the 1960s, the U.S. chose not to enter Cambodia or Laos, and in fact a communist regime came to power in the state of “Pathet Lao.” The debate of today mainly involves Afghanistan and Pakistan, two countries that Obama believes we should be focusing on. While McCain argues that Obama is “telegraphing his punches” on live television (saying the Democratic candidate is broadcasting his plans to “attack Pakistan”), the former military hero quotes one of his own “heroes” when he declares his foreign policy strategy: “speak softly but carry a big stick” (Teddy Roosevelt, by the way). Now, I do not know much abut military strategy or foreign policy, but I would think that talking would be a bit more important. Both candidates emphasize that they need to gain support of Pakistan’s people, just as the U.S. government had unsuccessfully tried to gain the support of the South Vietnamese. Still, McCain wants to be diplomatic in a way that can hide America’s true motives; we have to be tough and carry that big stick, right? On the other hand, Obama says that America needs to “stop coddling” Pakistan. He did not mean we should jump in there and attack them (as if we never do that…), but it was his way of letting them know where America stands. Pakistan might be angry, but they ain’t gonna hear us if we speak too softly, and darn tootin’ right they aren’t gonna like us too much if we act nice and then whip out our big sticks (come on, McCain, save that for Cindy).

There were sharp disagreements not only about the war in Iraq, but also about America’s position in the world. Not only do most people agree that Obama won the debate, but they also believe that he presented a stronger foreign policy stance than his opponent.  McCain emphasized our status as the shining light of the free world, noting that our country is obliged to at least try to intervene in world struggles. Obama, on the other hand, said that while it is a moral duty to intervene in cases of genocide, there are other situations (I am assuming he means politically) in which the U.S. has to determine if, in fact, their presence will benefit anyone or bring about any sort of resolution. This seems like a legitimate enough foreign policy for me, and it probably would not have gotten us into Iraq in the first place. Sure, I want genocide and ethnic cleansing in Darfur to end, but I don’t think the U.S. should go around policing governments that we do not approve of, like Iraq. Like Obama said, we can not do it all. There is always going to be oppression and struggle in the world, but we can not intervene everywhere. Especially during this economic crisis, Americans should be focusing first and foremost on our country. Even McCain said that in order to have a strong military, you need to have a strong economy as a foundation. Well, maybe now is a good time to focus on the root of the problem instead of spending billions of dollars in a country where we really do not seem to be getting anywhere.

There is so much more I could talk about (economic and energy policies in particular) but what did everyone else think of the debate?

Photo Credits