review of the first presidential debate

it is that time again. the time when i get all antsy and start asking for peoples opinions on subjects they dont quite understand. get ready for more politics! yes!

the format will be a little different than the reviews of the conventions because this debate is something entirely different from those events. im pretty sure you may be a little anxious to hear my humble opinion on the actual winner of the debate. obama won. handily? not at all.

the first half hour or so of the debate focused on the current economic crisis and the general economic situation of the united states. bear in mind that this was billed to me as a debate on foreign policy. i understand that the american people want to hear the candidates opinions on the pressing issue, but the extent to which this debate focused on economics was ridiculous. but alas, it was part of the debate and did need to be factored into the equation.

john mccain for the first fifteen minutes or so could not articulate any real substantial stance on the economic crisis. he supposedly suspended his campaign to go down there and be superman, bringing about compromise, and he didnt. im not even sure he knew what the hell was even going on. barack obama took the time to articulate his position and list his first priorities as the leader of the country. i didnt particularly agree with some of what he said, but at least he told me where he stood.

the conversation then diverted itself into an earmarks vs. irresponsible spending brawl. i cannot even begin to tell you how much this pissed me off. jim learer seriously let the debate get out of hand. no one cares about any of it. we all know neither candidate can fix it. and we all wanted to hear about foreign policy. this first third or half of the debate goes to barack obama without a doubt. he won it by a good thirty or so point margin. mccain came off looking like an idiot, hesitant to really define anything.

economy- barack obama: 60, mccain:30

the remainder of the debate was a little more spirited. there were misquotations and false characterizations. it was all beautiful political theater. mccain had a built in advantage here. he actually does have significant experience in the field and the surge by most observations has been successful.

mccain displayed an incredible knowledge of the middle east and eastern european political climate. obama appeared to have an accurate broad knowledge, but it was nothing compared to his opponent's detailed knowledge. obama lost points because he could not justify his opposition to the surge, but won them back by deflecting the issue with a "the war didnt start in 2007" line.

obama also staved off a major error in statement he made a while back by giving more nuance to his assertion that we need to be more open with foreign leaders, explaining that of course he would prepare beforehand and only enter into a meeting if he felt it may benefit the american people. mccain came off as a shrewd professional at the negotiation game, citing specific names of leaders im sure the president himself could not remember.

foreign policy- obama:55, mccain: 75

total- obama:120, mccain:105

i would have liked to have seen someone break 150. maybe next time.

the main points to draw from the debate, if you didnt feel like reading all of that:
obama outlined his priorities economically but did little to assure anyone that he knew how to responsibly cut funding where necessary. mccain didnt appear to have the faintest idea as to what was going on domestically or in the markets and harped on his no more earmarking rant. mccain clearly knows foriegn policy, but may be too agressive in his belief that diplomacy can only come when other nations meet certain criteria. obama has a newer, but too braod approach to diplomacy, but lacks the necessary knowledge of the political landscape of these key areas of the world.

they both suck