We missed it.
We tuned in, we watched. We just didn't see much of a debate.
We heard Barack whine, yet again, that in 2002 he gave a speech against the illegal war and we grasped just how pathetic it is that he still points to a speech six years ago as qualifying him to be president.
"I was right! I was right!" he crows (even though he wasn't, read the text of that alleged 'anti-war' speech). But strangely, he considers the surge to have 'worked' in some way but can't admit he was wrong in 2007.
He wants to say he was right in 2002 but wants to pretend like 2007 didn't happen.
It was very strange.
It was very strange to watch John McCain bungle the flaw in Barack's meeting "without preconditions" with foreign leaders who are not considered 'friends' of the US: No preconditions, no human right advances.
On Iraq, McCain was correct that Barack was confusing a tactic with a strategy. But he scored no points for being right because most Americans were left as lost as Barack. (Hint to McCain, define the terms next time.)
Barack was a real kiss ass to moderator Jim Lehrer (PBS). "A testimony to you, Jim," cooed this century's Eddie Haskell when Lehrer noted that both candidates were "even on time." When not playing kiss ass, Barack acted like a punk ass, attempting to speak over McCain (this happened before Lehrer noted they were even on time and it happened after) and also hoping that the press love and his sucking up to Jim meant he could call on Jim to rescue him. If Barack needs help from Jim Lehrer to handle a debate with John McCain, how ready is Barack for the Oval Office? Or does he intend to take Jim to the White House with him?
Barack was fumbling all over the stage and that may have been noticeable when he insisted, "Jim, let me just make a point. I've got a bracelet, too!" Well good for you. But next time you tell us who you're wearing, Barack, how about knowing it ahead of time? ("From Sergeant -- from the mother of Sergeant . . .") One would assume the man who is yet again on the cover of Men's Vogue would know how to work that runway.
Possibly the most interesting exchange in the dull proceedings was over Afghanistan. If so, it was spread out over many, many responses. We'll excerpt it so that it runs together.
John McCain: Senator Obama is the chairperson of a committee that oversights NATO that's in Afghanistan. To this day, he has never had a hearing.
Barack Obama: Look, I'm very proud of my vice presidential selection, Joe Biden, who is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and as he explains, and as John well knows, the issues of Afghanistan, the issues of Iraq, critical issues like that, don't go through my subcommittee because they're done as a committee as a whole.
John McCain: You might think that with that kind of concern that Senator Obama would have gone to Afghanistan, particularly given his responsibilities as a subcommittee chairman. By the way, when I'm subcommittee chairman, we take up the issues under my subcommittee.
First, had Barack offered any objection to McCain's characterization, we'd include it. We're specifically thinking that Barack did, after the Democratic Party primary ended, finally hold a subcommittee meeting. Since he didn't correct McCain on that, we'll assume that either Barack didn't hold a meeting or he doesn't really care enough about the meeting to bring it up.
Second, Barack's either ignorant or lying. Work is done in subcommittees and, in fact, the entire point of Congressional subcommittees is to do the work that will then be brought before the larger committee as a whole.
McCain (rightly) pointed out, as a subcommittee chair, he has held meetings. That might have been a moment in the debate if it had played out as above -- instead it was broken by too many other exchanges. But Barack becomes that subcommittee chair just as he decides to run for president. So the point there should be, "You took a chair position and did nothing with it. Was it just to beef up your year book resume?"
The fact that the position was handed to him by the man who is now his running mate only makes it look even more like Barack was being given credits he didn't earn.
Third, tip to Barack, it's probably not a good idea to point your running mate, who is not top of the ticket, to shore up your own weak credentials. It only leaves the impression with Americans who are undecided that you really do not have the earned credits for the graduation you're so quickly attempting to make.
Fourth, Barack never addressed not visiting Afghanistan. He let the charge stand.
It was an embarrassment for Barack.
The spinners are out in full force insisting he did good. He didn't. (And despite all the prep, he still stammered and uh-uh-uh-ed his way through.) In the debate itself, no one won. We're sure Amy Goodman will use Monday's Pravda on the Hudson to reconstruct bits of the debate and insist Barack won. He didn't win.
In fact, he actually came off worse than McCain.
PBS' Washington Week found Gwen and the gang doing two live shows Friday. On the first, pre-debate, they offered what each needed to do (based on their own beliefs and on what the campaigns were saying). Dan Baltz (Washington Post) noted McCain's hurdles included the age difference.
McCain held up throughout the debate. He also didn't rush to Jim for help in dealing with Barack or repeatedly attempt to speak over Barack when it was Barack's turn.
Barack's turn. The debate seemed to exist to remind everyone of Michelle Obama's infamous words that Barack didn't need to wait his turn. She meant it another way but what it boils down to is that two years into his first US Senate term, he didn't feel he needed to wait to run for the presidency. And Friday night, he didn't feel he needed to wait his turn.
Combine his repeated attempts to speak when it was McCain's turn (before and after Jim Lehrer noted the two candidates were dead even in the amount of time they'd been given) and his being made a subcommittee chair by his running mate Joe Biden-- in some sort of "be chair, but it's in name only" formation -- and the impression Barack made was of someone who doesn't believe he has to earn a damn thing or that he has to wait his turn. The line starts with Barack, apparently, and, if he can't earn a position, a man will create one for him sort of like the stereotype of seventies husbands with money creating make-work 'careers' for their wives by setting them up with little shops to dabble in.
Jim Lehrer actually tried to play fair and, in fact, frequently encouraged the two candidates to speak to one another and not him. But it's hard to have a presidential debate without all the candidates.
On that, two points. First off the McCain decision that put the debate in question. McCain decided to return to DC mid-week and suspend his campaign. On Friday he announced he would participate in the debate.
Some are calling that a 'bad decision' on McCain's part. It wasn't.
It was a very smart decision.
For those acting like it was the end of the world, Barack walked out of two debates in the last 12 months. He walked out of a December debate involving all the Democratic candidates (the other candidates walked as well -- the writers' strike was going on and no one wanted to cross a picket line). In April, seven days before the scheduled and announced North Carolina debate with Hillary Clinton, Barack called it off.
It was hilarious to hear the college Friday's debate took place in whine about the money they'd spent and how they might lose it. No one worried when Barack cancelled the North Carolina debate.
But the college . . .
That's why it was smart on John McCain's part. The locale was chosen for Barack's benefit and he was scheduled to reap tons of positive press insisting he was historic. Maybe he could have claimed he wouldn't even be on the stage if his parents hadn't met at the groundbreaking of the campus all those years ago? They didn't but his mother gave birth long before the Selma March and that didn't prevent Glory Hog Barack from crediting the Selma March with getting his parents together originally.
What McCain did was steal the press.
By become an 'iffy,' he became the story. There was no time for the joyful stories about the campus and it's long history and what it mean for (bi-racial) Barack and blah, blah, blah. The week was supposed to be all about Barack and reporters from various news outlets were assigned 'historical' stories -- the bulk of which never ran because McCain stole the thunder. Hard to reflect on history when the entire debate is up in the air.
For that and many more reasons, we'd rule the McCain the winner.
The loser?
The viewers. A presidential debate needs to inform and, to do that, you need to include the candidates running for the office. Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin weren't present. (Links only to McKinney and Nader. We're tired and not in the mood to write this piece let alone hunt down links. We will note an update, Adam Kokesh is no longer supporting Bob Barr.) How are Americans supposed to decide which candidate they support when all the candidates are not present?
But of course the 'debates' aren't about Americans deciding. They're about corporations telling you there are only two choices and that you better fall in line and do so quickly. There was more spontaneity in the scripted Ralph Nader and Obama Girl YouTube video then there was on stage. Doubt it?
If there's one question McCain needs to answer on Iraq, it's why he says the US has won? He has made that statement repeatedly. It's an opinion statement and he may be able to defend it. (We don't believe there's a 'win' there.) But to know why he says it, he needs to be asked to explain it. After he's asked that, he needs to be asked when withdrawal follows 'victory'? Barack needs to be asked about reality. He gave a speech in 2002. Yeah, and by 2004, he was telling the press that he didn't know how he would have voted if he'd been in the Senate at that time and he was endorsing Bully Boy's illegal war. Once in the Senate, he waited until after he announced his run to finally vote against funding the illegal war. He's gotten away with crowing "I was right in 2002!" over and over. Being right in 2002 means nothing if you go on to back down from the position which, for the record, is what Barack did. Maybe he could explain that? To know if he could, he'd have to be asked to do so.
--------
Ava note added 9-29-08. Community member Marci e-mailed to note this post at No Quarter. We (C.I. and I) knew that the parents weren't happy about Barack using their son -- which is why we did not even include the son's name in the bracelet comments above -- we did not know, as No Quarter has pointed out, that they had asked Barack to remove the bracelet.. W
