Debatable

John McCain and Barack Obama went head-to-head for the first time last night, trading jabs at each other over government spending and foreign policy issues but largely avoiding specifics on the controversial $700 billion federal bailout of America’s troubled financial sector.

Neither Libertarian presidential nominee Bob Barr nor Green Party nominee Ralph Nader were invited to attend the debate, which was held in Oxford, Mississippi.

Contentious from the opening bell, both candidates ultimately professed their support for some form of federal rescue plan, although neither went into specifics beyond making generic references to “accountability.”

More importantly, neither seemed capable of discussing how the massive accumulation of new debt would impact their budget plans as president.

McCain certainly gets props from fiscal conservatives for his call to implement a spending freeze at the federal level and for promising a crackdown on pork-laden earmarks, but the Arizona Senator missed a golden opportunity in the debate’s early stages to lay the blame for the market meltdown at the feet of failed Democratic policies.

In fact, McCain seemed horribly wobbly at the beginning of the debate before gradually stabilizing and then coming on strong towards the end.

Similarly, Obama not only failed to capitalize on McCain’s sputtering start, but on the fact that the opening forty minutes of a ninety minute “foreign policy” debate instead focused exclusively on the economy – which is where voters perceive him to be the stronger candidate.

Nonetheless, a potential early knockout punch eluded the Democratic nominee, and when the focus of the debate shifted to Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Russia, Obama seemed to wither in the face of McCain’s mounting confidence and relentless criticism of the Democratic nominee’s inexperience.

Also, lost within all the fiscal and foreign policy wrangling, McCain on several occasions made overt appeals to Jewish voters – a demographic which our own Mande Wilkes has observed is very much up in the air in this election.

Obama made no such overtures, which we found incredibly stupid on his part.

Personality-wise, we thought Obama did a much better job that he has in the past of relating to people in this debate (although we detest the incessant class warfare angle he employs in doing so), while McCain’s legendary “curmudgeon factor” was far too ramped up.

Still, every time it seemed McCain was slipping off the ledge into “bitter old man mode,” he managed at just the right moment to dial it back down with some Reagan-esque anecdote of a personal conversation he’d had with an ordinary American from which he drew some noteworthy wisdom or inspiration.

Political insiders obviously “throw up a little bit in their mouths” when they hear such trite pablum, but we’re willing to guess that there were plenty of Americans who ate it up.

Our verdict? If this was a prize fight, we’d have to give it to McCain – barely – in twelve rounds.

Still, neither candidate performed particularly well, and to be honest both of them came off as far too petty and partisan given the gravity of the situation that currently confronts our nation.

There were slings and arrows aplenty, but statesmanship seemed in short supply.

Obviously, we’ll be asking the obligatory “who won” question below, but in our estimation neither candidate delivered the goods in what was probably one of the most watched presidential debates in American history – even on a Friday night.

Comments

Trackbacks

• “Sweetening” The Bailout :: FITSNews