Although Tom Brokaw and co. will inevitably insist on calling this a draw, I think Obama won by miles. He looked like an adult- calm, collected, with an overwhelming grasp of the issues. McCain came off as alternately sulky and spastic.
Nobody cares if McCain's feelings were hurt by John Lewis's comments. He's an adult, a U.S. Senator, and a candidate for president. I think Obama very effectively pivoted to what's actually at stake- you could see the CNN dials go off the charts when he noted that he didn't mind getting attacked for the next 3 weeks, but Americans couldn't afford to have the candidates wasting their time on useless attacks.
After that exchange, McCain's performance went way downhill. It seemed that he was trying to cram in every attack and talking point into each exchange. Sometimes this lead to incomprehensible sections where he would string together various bits of his stump speech without connectors- "we must drill now... independence from foreign oil... reform... vouchers" I thought his discussion of the Columbian trade agreement to be particularly difficult to follow. I think I'm fairly well informed about these things, and for the life of me I could not figure out what McCain was talking about. I can't imagine that many independent voters were able to either.
I thought that McCain raised the Ayers issue in a very disjointed way, and that Obama fielded the question with aplomb. I think it will be pretty difficult for anyone in the legitimate media to say that "Obama hasn't answered questions about Ayers."
McCain clearly was having difficulty keeping control of his emotions, alternately making bizarre faces, sighing loudly into his microphone, and at times seeming like he was about to snap (as Rod Dreher said "McCain was two tics away from a vein-popping "You can't handle the truth!" Jack Nicholson moment")
McCain needed a knockout to get back into the game, and he wasn't even close.
19 days.
1 comment:
Agreed in general.
One part where I disagree with Obama and can't understand why he has mentioned the auto trade sector vis-a-vis Korea and Japan. He's mentioned it (I believe) in all three debates about how "unfair" the trade between the US automakers and their Korean and Japanese counterparts. IMO it is just a complete fallacy to argue that poor trade policies have precluded US automakers from gaining a bigger market share in Asia. The problem, boiled down it its essence, is one of consumer preference: if you live in a country with $8/gallon gas, would you buy a Ford SUV or Chevy Tahoe? As is evident right now in the US market (with $4/gallon gas) with the huge push for hybrids and the like is a resounding NO. The Asians have simply been destroying Detroit in this area and is paramount in solving the US automakers' dilemna.
I hope Obama becomes more of a pragmatist on this issue and doesn't continue to pander to Detroit. Toyota, Hyundai, Kia, and Honda are building plants , investing in the US, and building more fuel efficient vehicles. How many new plants has GM or Ford or Chrysler built in the US in the past 10 years? How many have they built in Asia to sell cars to China, India and other emerging markets? Give me a break!
Post a Comment