Friday's Debate: Commander-in-Chief Test for McCain & Obama
Friday's presidential foreign policy debate is the Commander-in-Chief test for both candidates. Senator McCain, by virtue of his military and congressional service, claims the mantle of experience; but he is tied to the Bush presidency and still faces questions on his economic prowess and his temperament. He must show that his experience translates into superior knowledge and good judgment and that his approach won't be four more years of the same. Senator Obama must show that he can hold his own with the Senate veteran and that he is ready to be Commander-in-Chief.
Every four years, our political system focuses on national security for one night -- a classic set piece of political theater with real consequences. This debate matters more than most. Our country is at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and is struggling to eliminate Al Qaeda's safe haven in Pakistan. The world economy is in serious crisis, pressing us in ways our political leaders have not begun to explain. Americans seek renewal of U.S. global leadership at a time when respect for America around the world has fallen to an all time low.
Into this cauldron come two non-incumbent candidates, each of whom must pass the commander-in-chief test and demonstrate that he:
• Offers real change from the past eight years;
• Understands foreign policy beyond simplistic soundbites and tough talk, by providing serious solutions;
• Is ready to grapple with the complexities that link our security and our economy; and most importantly
• Has the temperament and judgment to lead.
Offering real change from the past eight years. Both candidates have claimed that they can reverse the failed and reckless policies of the past eight years. McCain, however, supported the invasion of Iraq and declared that the war would be quick and easy. He advocates a continued focus on Iraq that would leave little time for threats from Afghanistan and Al Qaeda's safe haven in Pakistan. Obama opposed the invasion, arguing that it would distract us from the fight against Al Qaeda. He has called for a responsible redeployment of American forces and a refocusing on Afghanistan and Pakistan. McCain is relentlessly confrontational towards Iran, rather than supporting the diplomacy advocated recently by five former secretaries of state: Henry Kissinger, Colin Powell, Jim Baker, Madeleine Albright, and Warren Christopher. Obama believes that tough and direct diplomacy must be part of a strategy for stopping Iran from attaining a nuclear weapons capability. McCain has taken an abrasive line with NATO allies, calling them "vacuous and posturing" in the run up to the Iraq war, and last week stated that he may not meet with the Spanish Prime Minister. Obama has promised to strengthen our ties with Europe, and his popularity there offers real possibilities. From Iraq, to Afghanistan, to Pakistan, to Iran, to Europe, McCain's policies are very much in line with the president's, and his differences tend to make him more, rather than less, hawkish. He will have difficultly differentiating himself from the Bush administration.
Understanding foreign policy and moving beyond simplistic soundbites and tough talk. Because of his military credentials and time in Washington, McCain is believed to have the advantage on national security issues. However, his candidacy has been plagued by "gaffes": confusing Shi'a and Sunni, not understanding the Iranian leadership structure; misunderstanding the series of events that led to the Anbar Awakening; consistently referring to Czechoslovakia - a country that hasn't existed for fifteen years; and failing to be able to articulate a clear understanding of our relationship with Spain. In this debate, McCain must demonstrate a mastery of the issues that is superior to Obama's and make no mistakes. An error from McCain could be catastrophic - undermining one of the central claims of his candidacy. Conversely, Obama will need to hold his own against the Senate veteran, and display a knowledge not simply of facts, but of the complexities of foreign policy questions. Obama has been attacked for having little substance behind his rhetorical strength. American voters will be looking for concrete policy proposals. On Russia they will have to choose between a candidate who jumped at the first opportunity to talk tough - or one who realizes that kicking Russia out of the G8 and casually threatening war over Georgia will mean the end of any cooperation on the critical issue of nuclear weapons. On terrorism, they will have to choose between a candidate who lumps Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda together and advocated invading Iraq to fight terrorism, or one who understands that each of these entities needs to be dealt with differently and that invading other countries is not the only way to counter terrorism. On energy, American voters will have to choose between a platform based primarily on the short-term solution of offshore drilling or a long-term comprehensive plan that reduces American dependence on oil. If McCain is not able to show a mastery of the issues, American voters will have to question exactly how much his experience is worth.
Grappling with the complexities that link our security and our economy. The economy is foremost on voters' minds and they will be looking for a candidate whose national security goals match up with sensible economic policies. "Fiscal responsibility" is an issue both candidates talk about, but do their policies-literally and figuratively-add up? McCain advocates spending $10 billion a month in Iraq indefinitely even though the Iraqi Government has billions in unspent oil money. His saber rattling towards Iran has the potential to dramatically raise oil prices; and his proposal to add an additional 150,000 ground forces to the US military will cost us an additional $175 billion. Obama has advocated a much more prudent and careful foreign policy - one that will not strain the American economy and drive up energy prices at a sensitive time, but that could require sacrifices from the American people as the Bush Administration never has. With the financial crisis now enveloping America, difficult economic choices will have to be made between measured approaches and overly aggressive policies which will cost this country billions.
Having the temperament and judgment to lead. In the Democratic primary, Obama faced challenges to his capability to handle a "3 am phone call." In a dangerous world, America's Commander-in-Chief must be able to approach a crisis with a clear-eyed and composed demeanor, avoiding knee-jerk reactions. History has shown that leaders' reactions in such situations often determine the difference between war and peace. Obama's short time on the national scene has been attacked as a shortcoming in this regard. However, Obama won support from the public and the national security community for his foresight in early opposition to the Iraq War. Moreover, he called for direct strikes against al Qaeda targets in Pakistan over a year ago - a position similar to the one now adopted by the Bush administration. He long ago called for more troops in Afghanistan - a position that is supported by the U.S. military and more recently by President Bush. In contrast, McCain's extensive experience has been characterized by un-diplomatic moments. McCain promoted the invasion of Iraq in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, assuming that Al Qaeda and Afghanistan were secondary. He has joked about bombing Iran. He has called our European allies "adversaries." He has called for kicking Russia out of the G8 - a provocative move in the context of already sensitive relations. And, when a war broke out between Russia and Georgia, as other world leaders, President Bush, and Barack Obama all took a necessary and cautious initial approach, McCain reacted quickly and with bellicosity. Throughout his career, Senator McCain has held up such "straight talk" as a virtue. The test will be whether voters believe tough talk or responsible action is the preferred presidential virtue.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Where is Ralph Nader in this?
One of the smartest men in American politics --- marginalized by the duopoly of the ReDemlicrats.
The Presidential Debate overseers are the two parties: they will effectively maintain their grasp on what gets aired, who hears what.
The insiders who have brought America down still control the show.
Nader's wisdom and his voice are needed by the American people, more now than ever---if for no other reason than to present to the voters a rational view that is outside the ivory halls of DC, when the issues are ones spiraling out of Washington's control.
Blocking his participation in the debates is neither fair, nor sane.
Being Commander in Chief of a bankrupt former world power is not what it once was.
ShootFromHip from loner/Marvick
versus
Thoughtful Reasoned Response from Team Player
In the debate look for this contrast in DECISION MAKING STYLE:
McC is a "Maverick?" loaner who SHOOTS FROM THE HIP without consulting anyone.
In contrast,
Obama is an "MANAGER" who calls in the experts, discusses every aspect of the problem, evaluates each alternative, looks for consensus, makes careful decisions, organizes people to implement solutions, and then evaluates the results.
So you have a SHOOT FROM THE HIP COWBOY not unlike the one in charge now.
Versus
A CAREFUL and THOUGHTFUL DECISION MAKER that has a very good idea of how things are going to turn out when all is done.
It is easy for a SHOOTER to blurt out things.
It takes a bit of time for a MANAGER to carefully word his points so they comes across.
BLURT VS. THOUGHTFUL
Lets see which works in a debate, but we all know it did not work in government under GWB.
This article really shows some contrasts between McCain and Obama...Friday's debate should be very interesting! I also noticed that Bloomberg has a really interesting article today - it contrasts McCain and Obama in terms of their reaction to this past week's ongoing Financial Crisis...the article is definitely worth reading! I'm including an especially interesting excerpt here, along with the link:
"McCain displayed a sudden interest in the SEC last week when he demanded that Chairman Chris Cox be fired. When his campaign was asked if the senator had ever criticized the current commission's performance before, they failed to respond.
All For Obama
Tellingly, three former SEC chairmen, a Democrat, Arthur Levitt, and two Republicans, David Ruder and Bill Donaldson, have endorsed Obama. Levitt is a board member of Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg News.
Donaldson, who was tapped by Bush to head the SEC, says Obama called him last year about the financial-regulatory problems. He has never heard from McCain.
``Obama has been talking about the need for better financial regulation well before this crisis hit and has done some real thinking about it,'' says Donaldson, a lifelong Republican. ``McCain comes across as someone who suddenly realized changes have to be made.''
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=alfUj1r0Z10o&refer=politics
Someone else may have pointed this out. Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution establishes that "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." The Constitution does not formally establish that the President is Commander in Chief of the nation. While there is much controversy over just how broad are Presidential powers, it remains incorrect to call the President by the title, "Commander in Chief" without the qualification that "Commander in Chief" refers solely to the President's relationship to the military.
It is ironic that they are going to be talking about foreign policy in the first debate, when everyone else wants to talk about the bailout. My main question with regard to the impact of the bailout on foreign policy is how we are going to be able to afford a $10 billion/month
Iraq occupation and war in Afghanistan and still pay for the bailout. Something has to give here.
how hard can it be to out-debate a man who lost an arm-wrestling bout to bob dole 12 years ago?
Since so many women voters who were Clinton supporters have been sideswiped by Palin as a woman, when will Obama announce Clinton as Secretary of State if he becomes President. Time is running out, and this will help swing those voters who want a woman in office back to the Democratic side of things. It's more than frightening to think of the outcome for this country, our kids, the citizens and the world if the Republicans win. We all know it would not be long before SHE would be the commander in chief. Scary stuff - possibly the worst movie scenario, except wake up folks, THIS IS REAL.
Or Clinton as Top Cop (Attny General) and turn her loose on all this WA corruption. It would be a beautiful thing to witness! Richardson as Sect of State?
What is very interesting and even exciting is the array of good choices President Obama will have for his cabinet and important positions.
I'm with you -- he should announce at least the names he's considering. We would see the size of the brain trust he can bring with him and that's reassuring, for sure.
I'd want Kooch as AG................................................
Another thought...Bill Clinton as Secretary of State....Hillary as Supreme Court Justice...or maybe both on the supreme court. The issue of having to replace 3 judges hasn't been addressed at all & it's so important.
Eight years ago, McCain's service ment nothing when he went up against Bush - a man with no real military experience. Why do the Republican's keep acting like it is the be-all, end-all of a good Comander in Chief? They didn't think so back then.
The scariest thought I've had in the past few weeks was that these guys actually though Bush was better than McCain not so long ago. What if they were right? God help us all!
I've still yet to see an explanation as to why McCain's experience as a POW qualifies him to be a commander in chief or gives him a leg up on foreign policy. Even though he's been on various committees what crisis has he specifically handled. Obama seems to know more than McCain does about foreign policy - as McCain frequently seems confused as to what country he's in and his answer to everything is "more troops." We have no resources or manpower to intervene in Georgia yet McCain and Palin act like they are contemplating war. I think it makes us appear weaker to threaten to intervene and not do anything than just staying out of it except through non-invasive means (political and economic pressure). McCain and Palin say we need to stand with NATO members yet he dissed Spain last week. And everything Obama has suggested Bush or McCain have now embraced; withdrawing from Iraq; going into Pakistan to seek out Al Quaeda; negotiating with Iran. What innovative or helpful idea has McCain suggested in the last 5 years on foreign policy?
My taught Obama is always cool and calm even under heavy adversity, I feel McCain will lose his cool and come across as an angry old man.
Obama is cool because he is detached and indifferent. He's never really had to fight anybody worth fighting. I hear he's now using the Mondale strategy of deficit fighter to make people realize there is a price to pay for the things government offers. Attack Pakistan now there is a man of peace. Just move the troops from Iraq to Afghanistan for how many years. Try to coax NATO allies that it is worth all the blood and treasure. Now tell the people the cost of things, the cost for supplying all the domestic promises and continue with wars varied and sundry. Tell your Democratic friends that you plan on austerity measures. Tell them who's ox is going to be gored. Obama will probably come across a cool until he is under stress then he will become an angry young man. The man of the new politics is showing all the signs of a politician school in Daley's Chicago
So, I know Vietnam Vets who have received treatment for their PTSD and are doing better but are not really ready for a stress situation, much less ready to be President of the USA.
PSTD victims have uncontrolled rages, experience periods of confusion followed by anger, are unable to maintain intimate relationships and, most importantly, have great difficulty multi-taskin and performing under pressure. Sound familiar?
Sen. McCain brings up his POW experience in speech after speech, another sign of untreated Post Tramatic Stress Disorder. Sadly, too many Vietnam Vets still suffer from this difficulty and we have more on the way from our war in Iraq.
Vote for McCain? Poor man needs treatment much more than he needs votes.
Amen
http://latenightpizzas.wordpress.com
I too am quite looking forward to this debate. As I state here:
http://www.somedork.com/daily-ramblings/five-things-obama-and-mccain-will-try-to-do-in-the-debate/
Five Things Obama And McCain Will Try To Do In The Debate
there are some interesting story lines developing, and I can't wait to see how they play out.
I read the post, and then all of the comments. I was surprised not to see one single reference to what amounts to the most important quality a comander-in-chief must possess: character.
Yes, character.
And by that I mean the unique mix of knowledge, composure, analytical skills, ability to make decisions under utmost pressure, ability to delegate authority when needed as well as the ability to take personal responsibility for issues of global importance, and personal experience in handling crises. There's more to mention, sure, but tell me, honestly, who of the applicants for the highest job in the country complies with those requirements? Let me put it this way: in case of a national or a global disaster (environmental or political), who do you want to have at the wheel?
I think the answer is more than obvious.
Very well said. It's goes along with my belief that the first requirement for commander in chief is to be a commander of respect. One of the aspirants had squandered his in the course of the last three weeks.
Just saw McCain on CNN speaking to a gathering today about the economy. He could not say five words without consulting his note cards, over and over and over. It is just pathetic. I fail to see how there could be anyone left in the electorate willing to vote for someone so clearly beneath the tasks at hand. Then throw in the successor, Palin, who might be the only person in the political landscape even less capable than he. I don't see any way he is going to be able to perform in these debates sans the note cards or other prepared remarks. It will be interesting to see. Do you suppose he will have little notes written on his palms, fingers and wrists? Perhaps that could be the next SNL skit.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
