September 27, 2008
WHY AN OBAMA WINS MATTERS.... Depending on your perspective and scorecard, most observers seem to think either Obama won a narrow victory in the debate, or McCain won a narrow victory. It's worth remembering, though, that the larger political context suggests neither result gave McCain what he needed.
Remember, McCain went into the debate moving in the wrong direction. Recent polls show him falling behind, the "suspend the campaign" gimmick was largely a flop, and as voters' attention moved to the economy, the race quickly shifted to McCain's weakest area.
Given this, last night was a genuine opportunity for McCain. The debate was focused largely on foreign policy and national security, issues perceived as McCain's strength by voters, the media, and McCain himself. It was, in this sense, an event that McCain could use to turn the whole campaign around.
Except, that clearly didn't happen. Whether it was a tie or a slight win for either candidate isn't especially important -- McCain needed a clear, dominating victory. He didn't get one. Not even close.
<...>
(For the record, I thought Obama more than "held his own" on foreign policy.
Like Fred Kaplan,
I actually saw Obama as being far stronger on the issue. I mention the "held his own" meme, because it seems to have quickly become part of the conventional wisdom.)
McCain needed a big night to turn things around, and he didn't get it. In this context, no matter how close viewers perceived the debate, it was a missed opportunity for a candidate who won't get too many more chances to change the race.
(emphasis added)
Yes, Obama "held is own" is designed to supplant "McCain got his ass kicked"
He stood up to McCain, and he had a more realistic vision of the world.]By Fred Kaplan
Posted Saturday, Sept. 27, 2008, at 12:31 AM ET
Sen. John McCain basically made four points in the foreign-policy sections of the first presidential debate: 1) He was for the surge (which "has succeeded") while Sen. Barack Obama opposed it; 2) he has experience, while Obama does not; 3) he wants to form a League of Democracy to impose sanctions on Iran; 4) Georgia and Ukraine should be admitted to NATO.
Obama dealt with those points—in some cases not as strongly as he might have, but probably well enough—and made several of his own: the need to improve our standing in the world, to wipe out al-Qaida in Afghanistan, to focus on creative diplomacy and not just bluster to solve problems, and to devise a sound energy policy in order, not least, to blunt Russia's resurgence.
McCain did little to rebut those propositions except to say that he knows how to do these things and that Obama's thinking is naive and dangerous.
Scored on debaters' points, the match was close. Judged on the substantive issues, especially on which candidate has the more realistic view of the world, Obama won hands down.
It was odd that McCain put so much emphasis on Iraq. Yes, he supported the surge, which has played a major—but far from the only—role in reducing the violence in Iraq. But Obama could boast that he was against going into Iraq in the first place—which speaks more to the next president's judgment about getting lassoed into future conflicts. And Obama was correct that the surge was always, even on its own terms, a means to an end—a way to reduce the violence so that the Iraqi leaders could form a unified government. It was in this sense that Obama meant that the surge was tactics while the political goal was strategy. McCain overshot when he kept saying that the surge "has succeeded," that the troops will come home with "victory"—a word that McCain's demigod, Gen. David Petraeus, has many times explicitly declined to invoke, for good reason.
Obama also did well in countering McCain's proposal for a League of Democracy—a group of democratic nations that would confront Iran when the U.N. Security Council can't because of Russia's and China's veto power. The problem with this idea, as Obama noted, is that sanctions wouldn't be very effective without the cooperation of Russia or China. The issue at stake—keeping Iran from building a nuclear bomb—has nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with common security interests. Russia can't be coddled on the matter, but cutting them off through a new Cold War is a counterproductive idea. Besides, the other democracies—mainly Germany, France, and England—don't like the idea, so it's a nonstarter. It's a fantasy on every level.
The two candidates weren't far apart on the question of letting Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, but their differences, while subtle, were telling. McCain wants to let both countries into NATO right away (which would mean war with Russia, if the treaty were taken seriously). Obama says they should be allowed to start the application process and should be admitted "if they meet requirements." The catch is that Georgia can't meet the requirements, one of which is that a member must have borders that are agreed upon. Georgia's borders have long been in dispute. This isn't just a loophole; an alliance can't agree to defend a member's borders if the borders are in contention from the outset. Again, it's a nonissue: Georgia is not going to be let into NATO under the current circumstances, no matter what McCain says.
more
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
