Free-State Reflections from the Debate

By Sharon Dooley.

Watching the debate on Friday evening with a crowd of fellow-Obama supporters was a bonding experience for this Democratic voter. Over 50 people crowded into DISH, (a Sandy Spring supper club whose Grand Opening is today) to listen to the Presidential candidates. Conversation was minimal as guests gave the debate undivided attention.

Neither candidate appeared to solve the financial crisis by their careful comments, but few in this group seemed to support McCain’s idea of a freeze on government spending. In my opinion, Obama did try to reach out to Main Street more by speaking of the teacher, nurse or firefighter who is struggling. Neither addressed any steps to take to prohibit such a crisis from reoccurring; such reflections would appear to be a requisite first step to forestall future crises. The out of balance compensation for Wall Street executives, who are paid whether or not their companies profit, was a topic I would have liked to have seen explored more. Tax breaks for this group seemed to be an important issue still for McCain. Additionally, on the domestic front, Obama’s health plan description seemed to be presented as the more comprehensive and affordable option for the middle class.

Many found McCain disrespectful of Obama as he neither looked nor spoke directly toward him. Perhaps that was some type of a tactic – or maybe it was a strategy, whatever, it did not appear to enhance his performance as a debater. Obama seemed formal, but open, his smiles seemed natural and not forced as did those of McCain, as Barack appeared to reach out more to his audience both in the room and in the national TV audience. That audience has been estimated to exceed 70 million viewers, showing that interest in this election remains high.

McCain was definitely the aggressor and attempted to portray his position as one of strength. Certain sound bites were peppered throughout his position answers and at times repeated, even though they did not always appear relevant. To his credit, Obama let few charges pass by without attempting to defuse them. One of Obama’s strong points was his repetitive use of the phrase “you were wrong” when he discussed the Iraq war. In my consideration of this debate, perhaps Obama over used the phrase - “I agree with John” as I thought he needed to contrast his positions forcefully. But the post debate pundits felt that this was a conciliatory tactic designed to reach the undecided independent voters, who prefer consensus to conflict.

By attempting to tie Obama to naïve thinking about Ahmadinejad of Iran, McCain was raising fears about the strength of Obama’s commitment to Israel, and his global understanding of the complex issues in the Middle East and nations of near Asia. This repetitive assault on Obama’s supposed lack of experience was skillfully parried in a dignified and intelligent manner belying the insult. It seemed that McCain was also calling out to his base by repeatedly invoking Republican heroes of the past, such as Ronald Reagan and Dwight Eisenhower, although he may have at the same time been distancing himself from the younger voters who are thought to be playing such an important role in the election this year. At the same time, Obama who showed emotion, but not the same passion of his convention oratory, was professorial sharing views looking toward the future.

Were there topics not addressed? Certainly I would liked to have heard more about global warming and international accord in that area, as well as how this financial crisis is affecting our international trade and ability to have a strong dollar. What do the two candidates think about international nuclear policies or multi-national efforts in space? We do not yet know and these are among many other topics that were not illuminated by this foreign policy discussion. But 90 minutes is not a very long time to cover topics in depth. We, as voters will have to go to campaign sites to learn more and tune in to the next two debates.

Jim Lehrer was a skillful moderator as he attempted to provoke a dialogue rather than allow a stump speech to be revisited. Unfortunately he was unsuccessful in spurring a conversation on the stage. He was flexible and moved nimbly from one topic to the next, pulling the audience along. I was struck that in our group, aside from the partisan cheers and occasional boo, the exchanges held the attention over the food and drink and camaraderie of the gathering. Discussions were left to the post debate reviews.

I do not have the same expectations for the Vice-Presidential debate next week as recent interviews have shown Sarah Palin to be out of her depth, once she cannot answer in memorized phrases. Will there be any substantive discussions? I worry that Joe Biden may be too verbose and seem boring or boorish, while she may be perky, if irrelevant, and be considered to have held her own edge if she survives without significant gaffes. In my opinion, she is totally unqualified to be a heart beat away from the Presidency.

Sharon Dooley is a Montgomery County Democratic Precinct coordinator.