Debate #1 Observations

I watched last night's presidential debate with a friend. As it was late, my daughter came over in her pj's and we paused (don't you love TIVO!) in the middle to put the children to bed. During that pause she asked what I thought others were getting out of the debate. My response was that if you already like McCain you weren't going to see anything here to change that. If you already like Obama, nothing this evening was going to change that. I wasn't sure what "undecideds" were looking for, but I wondered how McCain's disdainfulness would come across. Also, whether people would feel more sure of Obama's grasp of foreign policy.

Yes, I'm biased at this point. I've picked my candidate, warts and all, and I'm sticking with him. I don't agree with him on everything, but I agree with a lot more than I do with McCain. What draws me to him even more than policies is his underlying philosophy about how to work with people, his ability to think in broader strokes where more things are considered than the one fact in front of your nose, and his willingness to explain what he's thinking. Also, his forthrightness.

McCain was condescending with all of his  "he's naive" and "he doesn't understand". Those rang very hollow as Obama's remarks made it clear he did understand. He simply had a different assessment. More than that, those comments made it sound like he was attacking Obama personally, rather than disagreeing with ideas. We can't have our leading statesman approaching our adversaries that way. The only chance of reaching through to someone and finding ways to seek common ground and peaceful resolution is to respect that their perspective is different even if you fervently disagree with their conclusions or actions. Even if you need to protect yourself from them.

This is what Obama demonstrated last night. Though McCain refused to look him in the eye and attempted to belittle him, Obama did not retaliate with like behavior. Nor did he cower. He was still able to look directly at McCain and say, "You were wrong," without any need to strip him of his dignity. He was able to express his differing philosophy or assessment without making personal characterizations of McCain for holding things differently.

What do I mean by this? Saying, "you were wrong" is an assessment of fact. Saying, "you're were stupid" is a personal characterization. McCain could have said, "I adamantly disagree. I think you have that all wrong," rather than "he is naive" or "he doesn't understand." Experienced and smart people can disagree. Why does McCain need to belittle the person to argue his point?

People underestimate Obama's experience. He was a foreign relations undergraduate major and he's been on the Senate Foreign Relations committee since he was elected. This has been a lifelong interest and he's well studied. So, I wasn't surprised at his command of the subject matter. I know that others were, though, so I'm very glad that they got to see him in action rather than listen to baseless rumors.

By the way, those sub-committee meetings on Afghanistan were folded into a larger committee on the war on terror. That's why there have been no meetings. Obama has attended two of those meetings. Though McCain sits on the Foreign Relations committee as well, he has attended none. This is something else that bothers me about McCain. He's very comfortable lying. He knows what the structure of those committees are and that, as a group, the Foreign Relations committee made the decision to hold all the sub-committees as one and, yet, for political gain he's comfortably willing to purposefully misrepresent. He even lied about the Eisenhower story. (There was no letter about resigning.) He uses references to the, unknown to outsiders, labyrinthine processes in the Senate to mislead people for political points rather than having an honest debate about opinions and philosophies where the listeners can make truly informed decisions. This stuff bothers me. A lot. I'm looking for integrity. But clearly, based on who we keep electing into high offices and promoting in work places and rewarding in our culture, I'm an outlier on this. So, I don't know if other people noticed how often Obama had to say, "That's not true." Or whether they would bother to fact check.

I was glad to see McCain control his temper and stay focused.* McCain has had 26 years of experience on the job and he knows a lot. I disagree with the conclusions he reaches, but I like that they could debate at that level most of the time. Obviously, there will be those that agree with one candidate and those that agree with another. At least we know where they stand. What many may have thought was boring, I found to be one of the more well-presented debates we've seen in a long time. That's a credit to Jim Lehrer and McCain and Obama. And it was refreshing. I hope the rest of the debates have the same or better tenor.

*(Like him or not, you must be aware that McCain is known for his explosiveness. He's pugilistic by nature. It's the main reason he isn't a congressional leader or have a coaliton of support within the congress. Not his differing policy stances. Which makes you wonder how he could govern as executive. Obama has co-authored bills with several Republican Senators and still manages to maintain great relations within his party. Republican Senators have stated that he's someone everybody can work with. Sounds like a good person to have in the executive office to me.)