No Thanks, John

Tonight’s Presidential Debate: What I’m Afraid John McCain Cannot Hear

“We Republicans came to power to change government,
and government changed us.”

-Republican Nominee John McCain, During Friday’s Presidential Debate

In tonight’s presidential debate focusing on foreign policy, John McCain admitted his party had been tainted–changed by its fanatical quest for power and primacy. It was never more evident than looking at John McCain, himself, smirk via split screen while Barack Obama spoke about the financial crisis on Wall Street and Main Street, McCain’s patronizing comments in rebuttal, and his inability to point out his own specific plans for the economy, other than nebulous attributions to “his record”and status as “a maverick.”

As moderator Jim Lehrer left the topics of the current global financial crisis to broach the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, relations with Iran and other rogue nations, Russia, and global terrorism, McCain’s responses appeared more twitchy, aggressive and condescending, at times bordering on angry, even when evoking Ronald Reagan’s measured diplomacy. His statements were largely countered by Barack Obama’s calmer, and seemingly more thoughtful rebuttals, during which the Democratic candidate held his own against an opponent touted as being vastly more experienced in foreign affairs.

Despite his calm, Obama did not appear professorial–never speaking down to Americans with abstract theory over political substance–but rather, the Illinois Senator had point by point plans for each line item and issue posed by Lehrer. And while pundits leading up to this debate called Obama a great speaker but a sub-par debater, nothing appeared further from the truth as Obama seemed to rise above McCain’s every attempt to bully the Democratic nominee. The convenient CNN cross-section audience reaction monitor seemed to rise across the board–among Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike–every time Obama opened his mouth. The opposite appeared true when McCain spoke, always seeming to be defensive, even when on the offensive, with bitter, codger-like remarks attempting to paint Obama as naive while lending little in the way of substantive solutions, in lieu of zippy one-liners such as this one, relating to recent Russian aggression:

“I looked in Vladimir Putin’s eyes and all I saw were three letters–a K, a G, and a B;” keeping in mind, McCain then followed this statement by saying that “I don’t actually think we’re moving back to a cold war”–a war, if you remember, that was largely based on propaganda–and not-so-cautiously hearkened back to with every glib reference to a Russian leader and his ties to the former Soviet intelligence agency.

Every McCain response seemed to be a history lesson–a look back to a “better” era under the Reagan doctrine–lessons which cannot be underestimated in these diplomatically-divisive times. However, for all McCain’s historical plundering for articulate and well-informed responses to debate questions, his recent voting record, largely in accord with the President, and of greater importance in this election than his mere knowledge of historical context, reveals a mentality more closely aligned to the foreign policy principles of the Bush doctrine. This doctrine, with its unilateral and reactionary policies full of preventative wars set to depose foreign regimes, stands now in even more stark contrast to the political realism of the Reagan era (now a reminiscent Republican favorite in light of the recent decline of neo-conservative cowtowing), and the current direction of the nation as a whole.

Every time McCain argued that Obama, “just doesn’t get it,” Obama would retort with informed responses, on multiple issues, platforms, or regions, showing just how much he does get it–what he called a “broader strategic vision, addressing all the challenges we face.”

Admittedly, McCain seemed to be at his attack dog finest late in the debate when debasing Obama’s foreign policy strategies for sitting down with other nations, the efficacy of the troop surge in Iraq, and dealing with Russia–creating a divide between McCain’s experience and Obama’s idealism. However, with every accusation that Obama is naive for turning the country toward diplomacy–no matter how measured–McCain discounts the American people’s dissatisfaction with the last eight years of U.S. isolation and unilateralism. For all of our American fear, which arguably gave Bush a second term in the White House, the nation has never been more focused on “the economy stupid,” and Obama’s foreign policy plans spoke to the very change–for global perception and financial policy–that Americans can no longer afford to pass up. In turn, McCain not only looked the part of a relic of an out-of-touch administration, but of a different era entirely, taking a while to get going in this debate, a point humorously captured in the following exchange:

McCain: “As President of the United States, people are gonna be accountable in my administration. And I promise you that’ll happen.”

Obama: “He’s absolutely right we need more responsibility, but we need it not just when there’s a crisis…Ten days ago John said the fundamentals of the economy are strong…”

Jim Lehrer (To Obama): “Say it to him.” (Pointing to McCain)

Obama: “Ten days ago John, you said the fundamentals of the economy are strong…”

McCain (To Lehrer): “Are you afraid I couldn’t hear him?”

No, John. What we’re afraid you can’t hear is that the American public is in dire need of new leadership and a restoration of America’s standing and reputation in the world. I couldn’t hear that in you tonight, John. Tonight you seemed like “yesterday’s man” for a country that needs a new tomorrow.

Preceding the event, a pundit acknowledged the well-known addage, “Debates are never won. They are only lost.” But in a time when it seems this country is lost, especially from the perspective of the outside looking in, I’d give Barack Obama’s strategies for clear and decisive change the win.

— Jen Jones