A Good Night for Stasis, a Bad Night for Reality

Tonight's debate was a political Rorschach test. Wherever you were at 8:59 pm ET, you were at 10:36 pm (the debate ran a few minutes long).

It was a good night for Obama because, when 83 percent of the country believe we are on the wrong track, standing toe-to-toe with McCain on foreign policy is all you need to do. And Obama clearly did that -- scoring strong points on the lessons of Iraq, where he pointed out all the ways McCain had been wrong on the war. He even landed a zinger: "John, you like to pretend the war began in 2007."

It was a good night for McCain because, after a week in which he'd been bleeding like a hemophiliac in a barbed wire factory, tonight stanched the bleeding. He was able to keep the debate about the economy focused on taxes and cutting spending, as opposed to the crisis brought on by the free market, deregulation religion of which he is a devout follower. And he was able to interject himself into the major foreign policy decisions of the last 20 years.

But it was a bad night for reality. Did John McCain really try to reclaim the high ground on torture after having caved on the issue earlier in the year? And did he really profess his love for veterans after having fought against the new GI Bill?

The worst blow to reality came when the candidates took on the question of whether we are safer now than we were on 9/11. Both men agreed that, although there is still work to be done, we are, in fact, safer than we were. A low point: Obama pointing to improved airport security.

In truth, we are not safer. The Taliban is resurgent, al Qaeda is resurgent, Osama is still on the loose, Iran has increased its influence and has a burgeoning nuclear program, North Korea has joined the nuclear club, our ports are still porous, our chemical plants still poorly guarded, our railways and roadways vulnerable, and our standing in the world has been greatly diminished. But, hey, we now have to take off our sneakers at the airport and can only bring on board three ounces of conditioner.

Style points: I give it to Obama, who came across as relaxed and gracious (too gracious; enough with the repeated claims that "John is right"). McCain looked like he forgot to take his Metamucil.

Best moments: For Obama, it was his run on Iraq, his "muddle through" riff ("you don't muddle through Osama... you don't muddle through the Taliban"), and his reminder of McCain's gaffe about not meeting with the prime minister of Spain.

For McCain, it was his line about Putin ("I looked into his eyes and saw three letters: KGB), and his mocking line about sitting down with Ahmadinejad.

Most contrived moment: the dueling tales of bracelets given to them by the mothers of fallen soldiers.

Final verdict: McCain back from the dead, but not nearly enough to seize the momentum in a change election.

Tomorrow morning, after the dust has settled, and the best soundbytes have been played out, the economy will still be in free fall, McCain will still be the guy who 10 days ago thought the fundamentals of the economy are strong, and 83 percent of the country will still be looking for a change in direction.

Read more reactions to the first presidential debate from HuffPost bloggers, including Nora Ephron, Bob Shrum, Madeleine Albright, Paul Reiser, Sean Penn, Sheryl Crow, and more.

Comments

[daddysboy]

I was disturbed by one of the television networks ideas of fair commentary following the debate. Insuring that EVERY OTHER caller is from the opposite opinion isn't debate, it's a farce. There are not EVER an equal number of agreers and dissenters and to force this kind of equality and pretend that it is the norm is just a LIE. This gave the overwhelming impression of balance that just doesn't exist. It was a microcosm of everything they have been doing to public opinion over the last decade.

[daddysboy]

Thank goodness for podcasts as I would never spend my hard-earned Friday relaxation time watching a debate when I already know who I want to vote for. I thought Obama carried himself well except for, as has already been pointed out, his tendency to place his gaze too low (but I did observe that he is REALLY listening while in this pose so it seems to be a good thing in point, but a bad habit in appearance). You are correct to point out (if I am hearing you correctly) that at the end of the day, this did not move either candidate further than the other. Both candidates appeared to be cogent and present and there was less squirming than I have observed in past debates with other candidates. I think the fact that Obama could handily go toe to toe with someone that is supposedly more experienced in some of these areas says allot though and hopefully it was observed by some that envision a huge disparity in experience.

[huffingOff]

All right, now I understand why McCain refused to look at Obama during the debate. If he's so disturbed by the hallucinations he experiences when he looks into Putin's eyes, it's little wonder he's afraid to look into Obama's.

[huffingOff]

Obama succinctly pointed out the fallacy of the concept of "supply-side economics" and the dangers of ill-informed attempts at political engineering.

Whereas McCain, as a personal friend of Charles Keating, Jr. (whose campaign contributions he hastily paid back once he found out Keating was in trouble) and a proponent of the deregulation of the finance industry then called "Reaganomics" that led to the S&L crisis of the 1980s, and as a supporter of Reagan's policy of heavy funding and training of the Islamist mujahideen during the Soviet-Afghan war which ultimately led to the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan as well as Osama bin Laden's success, rhapsodized about the merits of Ronald Reagan in this debate. Not well-advised, I'd say.

McCain was also ill-advised to emphasize his political experience. His experience has consisted largely, if not mostly, in making mistakes and failing to learn from them. He has a long record of supporting policies that have led to financial crises and foreign policy blunders and, once a crisis erupts, trying to present himself as a critic of those policies.

Add to that his rude and disrespectful demeanor toward Obama, and you've got a very unappealing package.

[wagthedog1001]

"It was a good night for Obama because, when 83 percent of the country believe we are on the wrong track, standing toe-to-toe with McCain on foreign policy is all you need to do."

Everything else being equal, which it definitely is not, that's all you need to say.

McCain spent two months crying Obama is not ready to lead. Barack spent an evening dispelling that notion.

Bye, John.

[Mildmannered]

I know that many Obama supporters wanted Obama to be less deferential and harder hitting in the debate. I disagree. By acknowledging that Obama agreed with McCain on some matters it made Obama appear to be more bipartisan, better able to work across the aisle. (Don't get me wrong, where Obama disagreed with McCain he made his point very clear especially including the use of diplomacy in foreign affairs and on how to handle the Iraq War.) In contrast, McCain by being contemptuous and disrespectful of Obama proved that he could not work with democrats, and by stressing his "maverick" approach to dealing with republicans, it sounded like he could not even work with his own party.

[UtahLiberal435]

Actually, listening to the debate on radio (rather than watching on TV) I thought Obama's performance was decidedly weak. Lots of uhhs. No fightback. His most used comment was "I agree with Senator McCain."

Fortunately, the public didn't believe half of what came out of McCain's mouth, so the polls show a narrow win for the O-man.

Oh, I'll vote for Obama, no problem. But if progressives think this guy is going to be a big-stick reformer, I think they'll find themselves sorely disappointed.

[Yola]

Last night, very little uhhs; I found that impressive.

[Mildmannered]

Obama changed his speaking style -- quicker, more direct, less hesitating. I thought it was more effective.

[enaid]

I wanted Obama to be harder on McCain. Everytime McCain even vaguely referenced his prisoner of war stint, Obama seemed very deferential and allowed McCain long moments of talking. I wanted him to interrupt McCain. Make the point that McCain doesn't support the vets. That being a prisoner doesn't give him any special qualifications. When is Obama going to get tough?
One more thing: have you heard (alternet.org) the Social Security Administration is shutting down its databases on Oct. 11 thru the 13th. Peak time for voter registration. Maybe it doesn't matter who won or lost the debate...?

[daddysboy]

You do realize how disgustingly crass that would appear to the American people? You can't stand on a national stage and belittle ANYONE while they are talking about their sacrifice and service; even someone as disingenuous as mccain that would sell our country down the river in a heartbeat.

[Steamboater]

Twice McCain mentioned he was against torture and both times Obama said nothing! McCain voted for it.McCain was on the attack consistently and Obama acted like a gentleman. When is Obama going to learn that you can't be a gentleman with a thug?

[swankchick77]

What we do really need a "truth squad" for is seeking and outing the many incidences of voter fraud the McCain campaign and Repugs are already utilizing to steal this election. It's going on all over the place...there are documented cases, and yet, no one is bringing this up in the MSM. Hello?!?!

There should be a massive uprising from all of us, led by the Democratic party and the Obama campaign to bring these issues to light. The republicans want to make it as difficult as possible for Obama supporters and Democrats to vote and have our votes counted. When will THIS become a more central issue??? Let me guess...AFTER November 4, when McCain narrowly "wins", and then everyone starts crying, "fraud". We have to do this NOW.

[WaterRat]

Agreed. Obama should drop these obligatory "John is right." Plus, "I admire and respect..."
There's no room for his gentlemanly attitude when he shares the stage with a man who hates him.
McCain's smirking, and smug arrogant attitude to Obama, was a clear display of racism.
Not once during that hour-long debate did McCain have the decency to recognize Obama on the same stage. If ever a person showed hate, it was McCain.
Here's a man who claims he reaches across the aisle, but couldn't move a neck muscle to look at Obama.
Despite this shoddy treatment, Obama once again stood tall and refused to grovel in the lows which typify the Republican Party's gross and ill mannered campaign.
McCain won? Why did he skip the debate? All he does is rehash his service and time spent as a POW. Why not hang out some of the dirty washing on McCain? Whatever happened to the support he pledged for MIA's in 'Nam? Or, the 8,000 MIA's in Korea?
McCain's pontificates on a record that supports Bush policies that have us in the worst mess since 1929. No one had to prove the presence of WMDs in Iraq. He would have gone in anyway.
Next time, Obama should stir McCain's memory. What about the jobless, bankkruptcies, foreclosures, corruption, and a $10 Billion a month war created on lies. How can McCain win a debate when the world he helped build, is crumbling about his feet?

[tedeger]

Remembering that Rove intends to steal this election by disenfranchisement and hacking the infernal machines, Obama is going to have to do something dramatic during the rest of the campaign, so that McSame does not get a single honest vote. Also, don't forget the "October Surprise that the Rethuglicans have up their sleeve; something designed to knock the wind out of Obama's sails - or, perhaps, the cancellation of the election by the activation of the infamous "51" - and the seizure of the Nation by the forces of reaction, if it looks like Obama wins the election in spite of Rethuglican chicanery. PRAY, people! that looks like all we have left!

[FaceYourFears]

You're right about PRAYING!

[NicoloM]

I'm guessing the reference to "political rorschach test" means that we saw in the inkblots of the debate what we wanted to see and that the debate didn't change anyone's opinion.
I'm wondering if the way our elections are presented whether these "debates" ever would. When elections are reduced to obession about personality the process of our reasoning is subjective and more susceptible to faulty reasoning or justification.
"Mistakes Were Made, But Not by Me" is an excellent discussion of our personal defenses, selective attention and interpretation, rationalization and justification. These vulnerabilites are compounded by the highly polarized incessant drubbing of the "beer ad" type political commercials which entrenches opinions even more. Add to that the few outlets for reasoned discussion of issues, and we become rigid.
We have learned to be spectators and consumers in a process which demands our participation, yet offers few, if any, opportunities to participate effectively. We desperately need a fair and open forum to engage in reasoned discussion in which all people participate. It is the only way that issues will be addressed rationally, and intellect and reason will lead. So these types of political theater don't overcome the inertia of stasis or probe reality.
The Rorschach on the other hand can be funny-- eg. Bill Murray in "What About Bob" says that each inkblot makes him think about sex, "But Doc, you're the one with all the dirty pictures."

[LatteLibertine]

I believe Senator Obama was spot on when he noted the United States is not as highly regarded in the world as we once were. I believe Senator Obama would do far more to heal some of these problems than Senator McCain would. McCain is in denial about the situation and would paint the rest of the world as jealous of our exceptionalism. Being proud of the unique nature of the country is fine and willful nationalistic ignorance to our governments faults is not.

[allan08]

as a matter of fact if people would check there facts McCain tried 5 years ago to re regulate Freddie and fanny Barney Frank Christoper Dodd and other blocked his bill because they thought that by re regulating the 2 companies it would prevent minorities and people with less then good credit from getting a mortgage as for uneployment bush (ah that dirty word) until very recently the unemployment rate was 4.5% under clinton 5.5% which is lower??? also bush had until recently had 55 months or 12 million jobs created a record for the USA as for lobbyists obama got more money then any other senator except 1 from the likes of freddie and fanny and guess who one of obamas main guys is the former head of freddie max also why do bussiness go overseas because taxes and other expenses are cheaper they have to saty in business other countries have lower or no capital gains taxes obama wants to raise them just wait and watch the slowdown when obama does what he wants with the economy business will be in full retreat

[daddysboy]

There is no 'try'. There is DO or DO NOT. What you are actually saying is that mccain was unsuccessful 5 years ago. Since there was a republican majority about 5 years ago you would have think this could have been accomplished easily if that was the intention. The fact is that mccain has been a senator for a LONG TIME and has actually accomplished very little in the way of reform as he stalwartly insists he is so prepared and able to do. Make no mistake, mccain is part of the deregulation crowd, not part of the reform crowd.

[tedeger]

Business is in full retreat now, and has been for almost all of the last two years. the twelve million hamburger flipping jobs do not account for the millions of outsourced GOOD jobs for which the Bushes are responsible, with an assist from Clinton. Facts seem to be strangers for the Bush League.