the debate

I know I said I wouldn't blog about politics.  Sorry.  Things are just too crazy not to say anything, not to at least put something out there in the world.  Too much is at stake.
INITIAL IMPRESSIONS
(In the first place, I was blown away by McCain's weird turn from "The fundamentals of our economy are strong," to "Oh-Crap-things-are-REALLY-bad-let's-postpone-the-debate-until-I-figure-out-how-to-keep-this-economy-thing-from-snuffing-out-my-chances."  It didn't come off as sincere, but as a stunt, much like choosing that pretty woman no one had ever heard of and touting her foreign policy experience when she got her passport six months ago).   

This was a debate in which McCain needed to blow his opponent away.  Foreign policy is his ground, although because of the current financial crisis, the economy also took center stage.

He did not blow his opponent away.  I won't go so far as to say it was a complete slam-dunk for Obama, but I think he was better.  Well-spoken, intelligent, clear about his ideas and plans.  His first statement out of the gate, I was very pleased.  I know more about his plans now than I did before, and I was in agreement with most of what he said, especially on the following issues:

--his criticisms of our attack on Iraq (and how Afghanistan is where we need to be since, you know, that's where Bin Laden, our actual enemy, is)... and his proposed timeline to reduce forces in Iraq so we can do what's needed in Afghanistan and Pakistan

--reversing tax cuts for the very wealthy and corporations and giving relief to the middle class

--his view that the economic meltdown currently in effect is in direct opposition to the GOP view that if we don't restrict the wealthy, the fundage will trickle down to the rest of us paupers, and everyone will live happily ever after (my words, not his, of course, so here's his):

"Now, we also have to recognize that this is a final verdict on eight years of failed economic policies promoted by George Bush, supported by Senator McCain, a theory that basically says that we can shred regulations and consumer protections and give more and more to the most, and somehow prosperity will trickle down.

It hasn't worked. And I think that the fundamentals of the economy have to be measured by whether or not the middle class is getting a fair shake. That's why I'm running for president, and that's what I hope we're going to be talking about tonight."

(later in the debate)"Here's what I can tell the American people: 95 percent of you will get a tax cut. And if you make less than $250,000, less than a quarter-million dollars a year, then you will not see one dime's worth of tax increase."

--a health care system that allows for everyone to have basic coverage, more $$ toward education (I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said, "I look forward to the day when our schools have all the money they need to educate our kids and the military has to hold bake sales to fight a war."  Interesting take on our priorities).

--reducing our dependence on foreign oil while developing clean energy alternatives

--willingness to meet with other world leaders to work through disagreement

Not to mention that he handled his opponent's dishonesty well, with a classy, calm, "That's not true, John."  I have to say, if I was face-to-face with someone who was misleading people about me on one of the largest stages in the country, I might have been harsher.

McCain said a lot less specifically about his own ideas, instead putting on this very strange emotional show, right out of the gate with his completely unrelated comment about Senator Kennedy, and reminding us all of how long he's been around with all sorts of anecdotes. 

Here's what McCain told us about his ideas:

1. On the economy: We have to get spending in Washington DC under control. He'll "veto every single spending bill that comes across desk." He wants to cut taxes to businesses so they'll remain in the US and create jobs. He proposed a spending freeze in the wake of the financial crisis:

"How about a spending freeze on everything but defense, veteran affairs and entitlement programs."

2. The war in Iraq: "And I want to tell you that now that we will succeed and our troops will come home, and not in defeat, that we will see a stable ally in the region and a fledgling democracy. The consequences of defeat would have been increased Iranian influence. It would have been increase in sectarian violence. It would have been a wider war, which the United States of America might have had to come back. So there was a lot at stake there. And thanks to this great general, David Petraeus, and the troops who serve under him, they have succeeded. And we are winning in Iraq, and we will come home. And we will come home as we have when we have won other wars and not in defeat."

3. Iran: "I have proposed a league of democracies, a group of people - a group of countries that share common interests, common values, common ideals, they also control a lot of the world's economic power. We could impose significant meaningful, painful sanctions on the Iranians that I think could have a beneficial effect."

4.  Both opponents basically agreed on Russia.

In addition, McCain came across as angry and disrespectful of his opponent. cheapening his arguments with snide comments delivered in a contemptuous tone.  Even when McCain was sort of muddling up Obama's words in attempts to be misleading (go to politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/category/fact-check/, even I was surprised at how many verdicts were either false or misleading), Obama maintained his composure and continued to look at him.  Obama did grin several times while McCain was speaking, but this was during moments when his own positions were being grossly mischaracterized, and he had to respond in some way to indicate that what was being said was false.  To not respond in this case would have seemed like tacit agreement.

Much has been made of Obama calling McCain by the wrong first name a couple of times, which is puzzling to me, but at least he was calling his opponent by first name, looking at him.  McCain didn't engage Obama at all.  I can't imagine McCain in a room with a person he really didn't disagree with.

(Like Ahmadinejad.  Whose name McCain couldn't say correctly, if we want to get down to thinking our President's competitiveness in a debate is based on correct name usage).
"YOU'RE RIGHT" = CONCESSION?
Much has also been made of Obama saying "You're right," to John McCain.  The statement from the McCain camp had it counted: at least five times.  They treated it as if he'd conceded the debate.

Ahem: "There was one man who was presidential tonight, that man was John McCain. There was another who was political, that was Barack Obama. John McCain won this debate and controlled the dialogue throughout, whether it was the economy, taxes, spending, Iraq or Iran. There was a leadership gap, a judgment gap, and a boldness gap on display tonight, a fact Barack Obama acknowledged when he said John McCain was right at least five times. Tonight's debate showed John McCain in command of the issues and presenting a clear agenda for America's future." –Jill Hazelbaker, McCain-Palin 2008 Communications Director

Um?

Clear agenda?  Really?  How many times did John McCain say "working class," while we're counting phrases?  Zero.

Anyway, back to my point.  (I do have one).  I'm not sure what debate everyone else was watching, but each time Obama said, "You're right," it wasn't conceding a point they disagreed on -- he was starting out from a place of agreement to move toward distinguishing exactly what they don't agree on.  This is a basic communication skill, and it saddens me to see so many people thinking on a level that says, "If a person says I'm right, it doesn't matter what comes after those two words, they're conceding the point." 

Here's where he said, "you're right," for the record (you can see the transcript here):

1.  "Well, I think Senator McCain's absolutely right that we need more responsibility, but we need it not just when there's a crisis. I mean, we've had years in which the reigning economic ideology has been what's good for Wall Street, but not what's good for Main Street...

And there are folks out there who've been struggling before this crisis took place. And that's why it's so important, as we solve this short-term problem, that we look at some of the underlying issues that have led to wages and incomes for ordinary Americans to go down, the -- a health care system that is broken, energy policies that are not working, because, you know, 10 days ago, John said that the fundamentals of the economy are sound."

2. "Well, Senator McCain is absolutely right that the earmarks process has been abused, which is why I suspended any requests for my home state, whether it was for senior centers or what have you, until we cleaned it up.

And he's also right that oftentimes lobbyists and special interests are the ones that are introducing these kinds of requests, although that wasn't the case with me.

But let's be clear: Earmarks account for $18 billion in last year's budget. Senator McCain is proposing -- and this is a fundamental difference between us -- $300 billion in tax cuts to some of the wealthiest corporations and individuals in the country, $300 billion.

Now, $18 billion is important; $300 billion is really important."

3. "Now, John mentioned the fact that business taxes on paper are high in this country, and he's absolutely right. Here's the problem: There are so many loopholes that have been written into the tax code, oftentimes with support of Senator McCain, that we actually see our businesses pay effectively one of the lowest tax rates in the world.

And what that means, then, is that there are people out there who are working every day, who are not getting a tax cut, and you want to give them more.

It's not like you want to close the loopholes. You just want to add an additional tax cut over the loopholes. And that's a problem."

4. "But John is right we have to make cuts. We right now give $15 billion every year as subsidies to private insurers under the Medicare system. Doesn't work any better through the private insurers. They just skim off $15 billion. That was a give away and part of the reason is because lobbyists are able to shape how Medicare works."

5. "But let's get back to the core issue here. Senator McCain is absolutely right that the violence has been reduced as a consequence of the extraordinary sacrifice of our troops and our military families.

They have done a brilliant job, and General Petraeus has done a brilliant job. But understand, that was a tactic designed to contain the damage of the previous four years of mismanagement of this war.

And so John likes -- John, you like to pretend like the war started in 2007. You talk about the surge. The war started in 2003, and at the time when the war started, you said it was going to be quick and easy. You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong.

You said that we were going to be greeted as liberators. You were wrong. You said that there was no history of violence between Shiite and Sunni. And you were wrong. And so my question is of judgment, of whether or not -- of whether or not -- if the question is who is best-equipped as the next president to make good decisions about how we use our military, how we make sure that we are prepared and ready for the next conflict, then I think we can take a look at our judgment."

6. "Nobody talked about attacking Pakistan. Here's what I said.

And if John wants to disagree with this, he can let me know, that, if the United States has al Qaeda, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out.

Now, I think that's the right strategy; I think that's the right policy.

And, John, I -- you're absolutely right that presidents have to be prudent in what they say. But, you know, coming from you, who, you know, in the past has threatened extinction for North Korea and, you know, sung songs about bombing Iran, I don't know, you know, how credible that is. I think this is the right strategy.

Now, Senator McCain is also right that it's difficult. This is not an easy situation. You've got cross-border attacks against U.S. troops.

And we've got a choice. We could allow our troops to just be on the defensive and absorb those blows again and again and again, if Pakistan is unwilling to cooperate, or we have to start making some decisions.

And the problem, John, with the strategy that's been pursued was that, for 10 years, we coddled Musharraf, we alienated the Pakistani population, because we were anti-democratic. We had a 20th-century mindset that basically said, "Well, you know, he may be a dictator, but he's our dictator."

And as a consequence, we lost legitimacy in Pakistan. We spent $10 billion. And in the meantime, they weren't going after al Qaeda, and they are more powerful now than at any time since we began the war in Afghanistan."

7.   "So obviously, our policy over the last eight years has not worked. Senator McCain is absolutely right, we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran. It would be a game changer. Not only would it threaten Israel, a country that is our stalwart ally, but it would also create an environment in which you could set off an arms race in this Middle East.

Now here's what we need to do. We do need tougher sanctions. I do not agree with Senator McCain that we're going to be able to execute the kind of sanctions we need without some cooperation with some countries like Russia and China that are, I think Senator McCain would agree, not democracies, but have extensive trade with Iran but potentially have an interest in making sure Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon.

But we are also going to have to, I believe, engage in tough direct diplomacy with Iran and this is a major difference I have with Senator McCain, this notion by not talking to people we are punishing them has not worked. It has not worked in Iran, it has not worked in North Korea. In each instance, our efforts of isolation have actually accelerated their efforts to get nuclear weapons. That will change when I'm president of the United States."
SOME THOUGHTS ON BINARY THINKING
The debate highlighted a key difference between McCain and Obama, in my mind: the difference between the binary (either-or, yes-no, good-bad) thinking that has reigned this past eight years, and a realistic way of looking at the world, one that incorporates gray.  McCain's discussion of the issues revealed an old man heavily out of touch with what the 21st century will require of the United States and its leaders.

Binary: Bad guys don't do what we want because they're bad guys?  We won't meet.  They continue?  We'll go to war with them. 

(I found the whole exchange about meeting without preconditions being "dangerous" very strange.  I think it would be more dangerous not to talk to those who could turn against us.  By the way, if, like me, you were curious about the he-said/he-said argument about whether Kissinger was okay with high-level meetings without preconditions, Obama was right.  I saw the words straight out of Kissingers lips at the end of the incredible Katie Couric/Sarah Palin interview you can see here.  And the interviews with Couric highlight exactly why people are concerned about McCain's running mate... speaking of binary thinking.  Oh.  My.  God.  I can see her past as a beauty queen coming out as she struggles to answer highly relevant questions by talking out of her arse.  Both segments of the interview are highly worth watching).

Gray: we don't like what they're doing, so we're going to carefully talk about it.  We'll make every effort at diplomacy.  We'll try to find areas of agreement so we can move from there to address areas where we disagree.  Both countries usually want economic prosperity, so we'll start there.  War is a last, last, last, last, last resort.

This is getting long, so I'll give it a rest, but I have to recommend this post which addresses the binary thinking tendencies of White Evangelical America (here's a quote that I thought was brilliant):
"Let’s start with the observation that evangelicals tend toward a binary mind (as historians Mark Noll, George Marsden, and others have delineated in detail). Some things are appropriately thought of in binary terms, to be sure: “Jesus is Lord,” “Ye must be born again,” and so on. But the world of politics is the world of assessing a situation and making the best of it with what, and whom, you have to work with. Binary thinking rarely helps get anything done, because politics rarely presents an actual choice between Good and Evil. More specifically, political campaigns never present a choice between Jesus and Satan." --Prof. John Stackhouse