The presidential debates are all a matter of managing expectations. The first debate was no exception. I expected Senator McCain to stumble a lot and to lose his temper at least once. He did neither. He exceeded my expectations. I expected Barak Obama to dance verbal rings around his opponent, landing light jabs all along the way. He did not. He barely met my expectations. I agree with those who called the contest a draw.
But the fact that Obama failed to exploit McCain’s missteps does not mean the opportunities were not there. Example: Senator McCain made much of the fact that he, the proven warrior and world-affairs expect, would not leave Iraq until we could leave in victory. As he saw it, the rookie Obama wanted out, the sooner the better, no matter the conditions on the ground. An old pro like McCain knew better; he would stay in Iraq until his generals said it was safe to leave.
But, Obama could have pointed out, President Bush and Secretary Rice both tell us repeatedly that Iraq is a sovereign country, which means the exit plan is really up to them, not President McCain or his generals. Or is this too naïve?
Or take Senator McCain on Pakistan’s General Musharraf. When Obama mentioned that we seemed to support a dictator because “he was our dictator,” McCain defended the General by saying that everybody knows that Pakistan was a failed state when Musharraf took over. Leaving aside the obvious question (wouldn’t any would-be dictator simply declare his country to be a failed state?), General Musharraf remained president from 1999 to 2008. Couldn’t he have turned the country over to civilian authority sooner? But Senator Obama did not pounce here either, because, I guess, pouncing is not his style.
But there were opportunities lost on the other side, too. Senator Obama again castigated companies who moved jobs offshore and promised a tax system that would favor companies that kept jobs at home. A sharper, quicker Senator McCain might have pressed his opponent to flesh out his plan. U.S. companies have hundreds of thousands of overseas employees; will we insist that those jobs come home? Suppose there is a backlash against our exports? Or worse, against our Treasury bonds? And by the way, does Senator Obama really mean to rewrite Nafta, even if Canada and Mexico like it the way it is? How, precisely, would Senator Obama turn back the tide of globalization?
Senator McCain obviously favors a more “muscular” approach to foreign policy, particularly with respect to Russia, China, and Iran. He seems to embrace the neo-con line, and although that may play well at military posts and Legion halls, I’m not sure it’s much of a vote-getter in a national election. Senator Obama’s protectionism and Senator McCain’s hawkishness are of a piece, and neither inspires much confidence.
On style points, I think his handlers should tell McCain to lose a bit of his edge. He did not blow a gasket, but just underneath the forced smile I sensed that he was often seething. And Obama needs to add a bit of “no more mister nice-guy.” Just a bit. The man is cool, and that will be a huge advantage if he becomes president. But in debates, you win by scoring debating points.
