Pretty much sums up my thought:
-------------------
 Friday's unique free-form debate format offered the best insights so
far into the vast differences, values and style of Barack Obama and
John McCain, and how they would approach the challenges that only a
president can decide. It was the stunning contrast in personal
behavior, not their answers, that was most revealing.

Given the time spent on the economic crisis, Jim Lehrer had time for
only five "lead" questions on national security--on Iraq, Afghanistan,
Iran, Russia, and homeland security. Other major issues will have to
await later debates. But there was enough time for many intense and
revealing exchanges. With a command of both the facts and the
underlying issues, and a reassuring manner, Obama convincingly passed
the key test of the debate--is he qualified to be Commander-in-Chief?
But the real insights came in the revelations about the way each man
thinks under pressure, and the way they interacted.

First, note a recurring pattern: With the exception of Iraq, where the
disagreement began with Obama's opening sentence, Obama usually began
by laying out broad themes, often mentioning instances of agreement
with McCain--frequently using phrases like "John is absolutely
right"--before going on to stress their differences. This is unusual,
and part of what makes Obama a unique leader; I do not recall any
previous major party candidate in a debate volunteering so many
instances of common ground with his opponent. McCain's response struck
me as odd and even ungracious; he has often proclaimed he would work
across the partisan divide, but he undermined his own claim by
completely ignoring Obama and his comments. Instead, he attacked Obama
repeatedly, using phrases such as "Senator Obama just doesn't
understand. . ." at least ten times.

The manner in which each man approached problems was strikingly
different. McCain understandably emphasized his own personal
experiences, but almost never made clear what he thought was the
larger purpose of policy. Each problem was treated on its own, and
McCain's proposed policies were invariably confrontational. John
McCain's world focuses almost entirely on threats. Obama usually
agreed with McCain on the nature of these threats, but his proposals
for action were more insightful, sophisticated, and comprehensive,
and, unlike McCain's, included the use of diplomatic and economic and
moral power.

These striking differences were not simply debate tactics; they
highlighted differences between the two men that are in their DNA. One
is the product of the brawling traditions of the United States Navy,
and survival under unimaginable conditions in a Hanoi prison. John
McCain has prevailed in life not by seeking common ground (ironically,
the most notable exception was his historic voyages of forgiveness to
Vietnam). What has kept him energized (and alive) is his enormously
combative style, which he proudly calls "maverick," and his quick,
sometimes pre-emptive attacks on opponents. It is not a criticism to
say that he is a gambler; he said so himself in his memoirs and in the
debate.

Although Barack Obama articulates his positions in a calm, methodical,
and understated way, he is clearly just as tough as McCain, or he
would never have come this far in life, against unbelievable odds. But
he thinks about how to solve problems in a manner much more conducive
to successful governance than McCain. While he made clear he is ready
to use military force if necessary, his life and career embodies the
search for common ground between peoples of different backgrounds,
different races, different points of view. During the debate he often
emphasized the non-military aspects of American power--including
diplomacy backed by American muscle, the restoration of respect for
the nation, and the direct link between America's economic strength
and its national security.

Astonishingly, McCain had virtually nothing to say on any of these
issues--yet these are the tools that must be precisely balanced and
deployed with skill if the nation is to regain its leadership position
in the world.

This difference was reinforced by the much-noted failure of McCain to
look in Obama's direction or address him directly during the debate,
and by the grim looks that left many viewers with the impression
McCain was just plain angry.

The overall effect was exactly the opposite of what McCain hoped to
achieve: Obama showed that he could handle the frontal assaults of an
aggressive and seasoned senator-war hero in the very area McCain was
perceived to be strongest. Obama offered the larger vision for the
nation--and a reassuring sense he would approach issues with the
seriousness they required. The gambling, brawling style of John McCain
has its attractive side to Americans, but it is not what we need in
the White House in these troubled times.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to 
date
Get the Free Trial
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f

Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:271610
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5

Reply via email to