I watched the first of this year’s presidential “debates” last evening. Of course, like so many others, I came away wondering who had “won” while thinking that Obama certainly held his own on the subject matter that is supposed to be McCain’s ace in the hole. The polls this morning suggest an Obama edge, particularly among uncommitted voters – the only place where “winning” or “losing” truly matters to the candidates.
However, the overall losers in the “debate” are the rest of us. As long as the candidates fail to answer the questions put to them and behave like over-stimulated adolescents in their mutual give and take, the voters don’t really learn much about anything other than their respective testosterone levels and relative degrees of pugnaciousness. For those of us who are actually interested in a specific answer to a specific question, there is little meat upon which to feed.
So what can be learned from the debates if nothing specific is to be had? More can be learned from watching the candidates’ respective reactions to comments or questions than by listening to their rhetoric.
McCain appears to have no doubts about himself or his importance, and he seems annoyed by Obama’s presence – almost as if Obama had not the right to stand so near to greatness. He has little or no grace of presence and, in his answers, wanders much further from the specified subject matter than Obama. He seems always out to make a point, whether or not the point has anything at all to do with the question asked. His is an aspect that reflects the arrogance of assured ego and power. I do not find it appealing, and I find it more than a little reminiscent of Dick Cheney. Personally, I am not as much worried about 4 more years of George Bush than I am terrified of four more years of Dick Cheney. If Obama had any sense, he would compare McCain to Cheney rather than Bush – Bush is nothing more than Charlie McCarthy to Cheney’s Edgar Bergen.
Obama seems self assured and somewhat aloof, bringing an almost professorial aspect to his responses. He tends to answer the questions asked more than McCain, but does so in his own way which is more than 20% off true. For example, when asked which programs he would not be able to undertake given the price of the financial bailout (in other words, what were his priorities in the face of a pending budget deficit of significant proportions), he chose to speak about the things he wouldn’t cut. This is a partial answer – i.e., these are my matters of highest priority that I won’t cut – but it didn’t answer the question except insofar as you could then conclude that everything else is subject to being cut or delayed. If he had only said that last piece, he could say he answered the question. Of course, McCain didn’t answer the question either, leaving the moderator, Jim Lehrer, perplexed and somewhat annoyed since he asked the question in every possible way he could phrase it.
All in all, my biggest disappointment was that Obama failed to go in for the kill at times when he could have done so. Someone needs to learn the skill and art of Lloyd Bentson telling Dan Quayle: “Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy, I knew Jack Kennedy, Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.”
Neither Obama nor McCain has yet achieved Lloyd Bentson’s status as a debater, much less JFK’s style and grace.
