Debate #1
I'll keep it brief, but I wanted to share my thoughts. I agree with what was said over at the Volokh Conspiracy; the first 20 minutes were the mindless bromides that indicate both these candidates think we are stupid. But the rest, with its foreign policy emphasis, struck me as really significant. That is, we were treated to the national conversation on the use of force in basic outline: national honor (and sense of self) vs. strategic prudence. Given the fact that the strength of AQI is unknown, that our impending withdrawal's impact on that nation is unknown, Obama gave a more than adequate defense of his own view in contrast to the once-dominant neoconservative view (which McCain still holds). I was actually very impressed with Obama's defense of 'without preconditions.' Yet McCain almost trapped him here into a mistake, noting usefully, "Low-level meetings like this already happen all the time." The question becomes, "What impact will Obama's outspoken articulation of such practices do to his own position in negotiation?" That's the weak point. It's clear that he has no sympathy for our enemies. But if they think he does, or that they can take him for a ride, that could be highly problematic. The discussion of Afghanistan was highly useful on both sides. (To this day, you cannot pay me to say that Iraq was a "distraction" from Afghanistan; whether I'd do it at all is another question.) As Obama spoke, I thought, "I can tell he's read the International Crisis Group report on Afghanistan." I was also in agreement with McCain that Petraeus should go fix Afghanistan at his earliest opportunity. If this election turns on the means by which the economy is improved, McCain wins. If it turns simply on the fact that it is bad, Obama wins. Democrats, as usual, are worthless on economics. But as this was a foreign policy debate, I'd say it's 1-0 Obama if you're scoring at home.
Comments