The moderator was wide-eyed and good. It's too bad that he wasn't able to get the candidates to talk to each other. If he had been able to get McCain to look at Obama, he probably would have blown his stack. Though Obama is a slick lawyer he showed a very human side, looking at McCain periodically as if to include him in the conversation. McCain avoided looking his way, sneered while Obama was speaking, and spoke directly into the camera when his turn came.
McCain kept saying that he believes Obama "doesn't understand" things, and that he lacks the "experience and judgement" to "rule" effectively. He also had a really hard time addressing anything for which he did not have a prepared statement, for example he kept returning to "earmarks" as an example of wasteful spending, and was unwilling to address Obama's assertion that our war spending is far more serious. In general I'd say that McCain's "talking points" were limited, nonspecific and memorized, while Obama is more clearheaded and able to respond to questions and attacks with a plethora of examples, his memory is acute and his powers of logic are functional. McCain is more intelligent than Shrub, but that's not saying much....it appears to me that his age is catching up with him, or he was never as bright as Obama, or both. He was using the same general strategy that Shrub uses, of speaking generalities and appealing to what people already know and believe. Unfortunately it works quite well for the majority, who are not all that bright themselves.
Thoughout the debate McCain made extremely general points, and Obama continued to clarify his words, explaining exactly what bill or person or even McCain had been referring to, and then saying some more about it. McCain came off in my mind as comically and pitifully dull-minded, relatively speaking. To me it is sad because there was a time when I respected him, there was a time when I thought I might even vote for him for president. But since that time he has played the game too long, and he is no longer a "maverick" though the word plays large in his campaign. It is illusion. Neither of these candidates offers any real rebellion against the way things are. They fought long and hard over the financial collapse, but neither one offered any alternative besides the "bailout".
The point of the debate was supposed to be foreign policy, and there were some statements made about Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia, Georgia and others. No surprises there. Both candidates seem to think that it is our job to assure that the rest of the world stays in line. They are so wrong, and frankly we cannot prevent more nations from getting nuclear weapons. We had best stop being the international asshole, and stop being target #1, rather than continuing to be the bully. But both men like the idea of being the most powerful man in the world and they are not about to back down from anything. Both men will spend us into deeper debt, and contribute to the ultimate failure of the nation.
I noticed that the word "fundamental" as in "fundamental disagreement" was spattered throughout. I got really sick of it. The two of them are "fundamentally" the same in that they both would have the federal reserve print enough money to buy out the failures in our financial sector, they both would continue to try to dominate the world, and they both are unwilling to paint themselves into any corners by offering specifics. They both are playing nice within the system in order to get elected, and will adjust their positions to satisfy critics. And they are both left handed.
Frankly, I have no faith remaining in our elections. As far as I am concerned, it doesn't matter how many of us vote for Obama or whoever, McCain will get in if the neocons decide to cheat him in. And unless we are willing to fight for clean elections (like the Ukranians did) we will not get them.
Thankfully, the debate didn't irritate me so badly that I couldn't enjoy dinner, which was wonderful fresh salmon cooked on the grill by Rick. YUM.
MEANWHILE this morning I notice that the Ron Paulites are planning to write in Ron Paul. They're calling it a "Write In Bomb", similar to the "money bombs" that were recordbreakers that got RP in the news. The plan is to lie to pollsters and all officials to keep that intent secret from the powers that be, but to do it anyway. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread394594/pg1