The presidential debates are over and none too soon. Obama's adherents probably thought their candidate kicked McCain's ass all over the stage and McCain's probably thought their candidate looked forthright compared to Obama's blasé information-rich stream of prose. McCain spent the three debates designating Americans as "his friends" whereas Obama addresses "folks" all the time. True believers are on-board, but does this work with the undecided? Why are people so eminently manipulable? Why are even the most suspicious so quickly---and easily---willing to denote as "friend" those who are trying to get elected to an office whose job description includes lying nearly constantly? <h>What Have We Learned?</h> Does anyone associated with these events even know what the word "debate" means? A dictionary at hand offers the following definitions: <code> <b>debate</b> |di'bait|<fn> <i>noun</i> : a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward. <i>verb [ trans. ]</i> : argue about (a subject), esp. in a formal manner </code> Neither of the candidates nor any of the moderators seemed to have been aware of these definitions. It may be that their hands were tied by the rules of the debate, as defined by the two parties---as Tom Brokaw mentioned about a dozen times in a pallid attempt to excuse his atrocious moderating---but that just means that the scholars in both campaigns that drew up the rules don't know the definitions either. The candidates mostly did one or more of the following: <ol> Stated positions that differed only in nuance, then poked holes in each other's definitions on some insignificant point Ignored the point being debated entirely and delivered a stock stump speech for a few minutes (both of them; a lot) Wildly mis-stated their opponent's positions---usually with a grossly transparent straw-man---then breathed fire for a while (mostly McCain) Refused to answer direct questions with direct answers (both of them; a lot) Wasted time talking repeating unfounded rumors or patently false and long-since-disproven allegations near-and-dear to Rupert Murdoch, but on the whole uninteresting for voters (again, McCain) </ol> None of the moderators called them on any of these tactics. At no point did a moderator actually offer more than a weak attempt to force a candidate to actually answer the question posed. A viewer of all of the debates came away mostly empty-handed. The interview, <a href="http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20228603_5,00.html" source="Entertainment Weekly" author="">Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert: Mock the Vote</a> lamented that <iq>...to watch [the campaign] become Bush/Kerry, Bush/Gore, has been one of the most dissatisfying experiences.</iq> We did learn that McCain has rage-control issues; that came across loud and clear. But one could either draw the conclusion that he's a time-bomb or that he's got it totally under control because he didn't actually strike Obama and his condescending smile even once in all three debates. We did learn that Obama doesn't ruffle easily; that too was crystal-clear. But one could either draw the conclusions that that he's either too dumb to know when someone's attacking him or too much of a pussy to do anything about it or you could think that he's the kind of person who can rise above personal attacks and stick to the salient issues at hand. There are doubtless many people in both camps, though it's doubtful that many switched camps as a result of the debates. <h>Debate #1</h> This debate was ostensibly about foreign policy, which was interpreted by Jim Lehrer to mean "ask questions exclusively about war". It's been a long time since foreign policy meant anything but designating countries as enemies and deciding which countries get bombed and which ones get U.S. military bases. A typical exchange went as follows (the following is <i>not</i> a citation): <b>Lehrer</b>: "What do you think of [insert name of supposedly evil country (SEC) here]". <b>Obama</b>: "(SEC) is a rogue nation and must be dealt with, first by attempting dialogue, but, if the safety of America is threatened, by unilateral force. Again, only if absolutely necessary. But totally unilaterally." <b>McCain</b>: "What's there to talk about with (SEC)? The President of the US shouldn't legitimize the behavior of rogue nations by entering into any dialogue with them. At most, low-level diplomatic functionaries from both sides may be in contact before the preëmptive attack." Bush must be flattered to see both candidates following lockstep in his footsteps; the only difference is that Obama puts it much more eloquently and McCain with a bit more anger than even Bush managed to bring. If nothing else, the debate showed quite clearly that the policy positions of Obama and McCain are---at their core---more similar than ever. Both McCain and Obama support some form of bail-out for the economy, though Obama talked about getting to the root of the regulation problems and McCain talked about accountability (prevention vs. punishment). The <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/26/debate.mississippi.transcript/" source="CNN">transcript</a> reads like couples counseling: <bq quote_style="none">OBAMA: [...] because, you know, 10 days ago, John said that the fundamentals of the economy are sound. LEHRER: Say it directly to him. OBAMA: I do not think that they are. LEHRER: Say it directly to him. OBAMA: Well, the -- John, 10 days ago, you said that the fundamentals of the economy are sound. And... MCCAIN: Are you afraid I couldn't hear him? LEHRER: I'm just determined to get you all to talk to each other. I'm going to try. OBAMA: The -- and I just fundamentally disagree. [details of disagreement] LEHRER: So, Senator McCain, do you agree with what Senator Obama just said? And, if you don't, tell him what you disagree with. </bq> Obama wants to draw down in Iraq and send more troops to Afghanistan, whereas McCain wants more troops in Afghanistan, but without drawing down in Iraq. Obama claimed that violence in Iraq is much lower now---because fewer American soldiers are dying---whereas McCain was adamant that Obama characterize the situation instead in terms of an admission that the <iq>surge worked(tm)</iq>. Obama and McCain have seemingly equal love for the <i>Missile Defense Shield</i> neé <i>Star Wars</i> neé <i>SDI</i>. Obama described Venezuela and Russia<fn> as rogue nations and McCain did not disagree. Obama called Russia's military movements in Ossetia and Abkhazia <iq>unprovoked attacks</iq> and McCain agreed. None of this is true, at least not in the simplistic way presented by the candidates. In addition, McCain professed what sounded like a form of platonic man-love for president Saakashvili of Georgia (on account of the man's adherence to the principles of the founding fathers of America). An uninitiated observer would have had a great deal of difficulty identifying the anti-war or left-wing candidate. A cynical observer would note that that's because there does not seem to be one. It's interesting to hear that people are polarized in America. However, they seem to be polarized on the nose-in-other-people's-business-issues (e.g. abortion, gay marriage, legalization of drugs, etc.). On the "bigger" issues (war, military, financial markets, etc.), they seem to be stridently niggling over minor details while fervently ignoring that they're basically on the same page. And so it was in the first debate: at issue was exactly <i>how</i> we should go about maintaining a hostile attitude toward Iran, not <i>if</i> we should; <i>how</i> we should restore the markets as they were, not whether we shouldn't just try something else (e.g. mix in a lot more <i>actual</i> socialism à la Sweden). The two---main/viable---choices for president argue over how much money to give to missile defense and how many extra troops to send to various hotspots, not whether America should be doing these things at all. For those who've had the good luck to remain progressive in the States without already having become cynical and deluded, it must have been quite sobering. The article <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn10082008.html" source="CounterPunch" author="Alexander Cockburn">Imbecilic Tedium</a> published a review of the debate, which also lamented the lack of variety in policy: <bq>McCain invoked the uniqueness of America and its mission to bring freedom and light to the rest of the planet. Obama solemnly agreed. Neither man saw fit to address the fact that America is only able to shoulder these imperial burdens because China has been prepared to finance the war in Iraq. The difficult word "China" passed no one's lips. Nor did the issue of an immense and unsustainable Pentagon budget intrude, nor the thousand or so US military bases overseas. [...] Both men once again bravely declared they would not allow another Holocaust to happen. Both pledged constancy to Israel. Both men said that an Iran with nuclear weapons was unacceptable.</bq> There are so many issues that are taboo, and the ones that do get mentioned elicit no percievable difference of opinion in the two candidates. And this, after nearly a billion dollars invested by the two campaigns; in fact, Jon Stewart wondered whether, since the race is<fn> so close, why pour so much money into it? <iq>Hey, couldn't you guys tie for $10 million, instead of a billion? Does it really cost that much money to tie?'</iq> <h>Debate #2</h> Watched it last; got about thirty minutes into it and didn't see anything that wasn't in either the first or third debates. McCain was apparently erratic and couldn't stop wandering around the stage when other people were talking. For a laugh, find the Daily Show clip where they show McCain wandering <i>waaaaay</i> off-screen with a voice-over impersonating McCain's voice, saying "Mr. Puddles? Where are you, Mr. Puddles?".<fn> <h>Debate #3</h> So, the third debate, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvdfO0lq4rQ" source="YouTube">Third 2008 Presidential Debate (Full Video)</a>, had the candidates at an angle to one another, but it seemed weird the whole time as they looked at the moderator rather than each other---even when directly addressing one another. <h level="4">Live Notes</h> <n>The notes for this debate are presented below without interpretation and with very little cleanup. Take note that YouTube lets you pause the video in case you're wondering how yours truly managed to write so much and still pay attention to the debate. Also, the candidates were kind enough to repeat themselves incessantly, so you only have to listen to about a third of the damned thing anyway.</n> McCain stumbled right out of the gate when his shoutout to Nancy Reagan got mixed into his greeting to Obama. The <a href="http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/third-presidential-debate.html" source="New York Times">The Third Presidential Debate</a> writes that he said <iq>And, by the way, our beloved Nancy Reagan is in the hospital tonight, so our thoughts and prayers are going with you. ... It's good to see you again, Senator Obama</iq>, but it sounded much more like "And, by the way, our beloved Nancy Reagan is in the hospital tonight, so our though...good to see you again, Senator Obama." Weird, indeed. Why does McCain just get to lie? Why does he get to say that Obama didn't "repudiate" remarks neither he nor his campaign made? Why doesn't Schaeffer verify or deny that Obama did issue a statement? Why doesn't this shit get cleared up? What the f%#k is the debate for? McCain: "I didn't <i>hear</i> a repudiation..." ... does that mean it didn't happen? Is he seriously getting all choked up about somebody being mean to him on the senate floor? Just like all the Republicans took their toys and went home when Nancy Pelosi said all of those mean words a few weeks ago? What? Are they made of sugar? <bq>ACORN, who is now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy.</bq> Really, John? ACORN? Really? <i>Destroying the fabric of democracy?</i> That's the straw that breaks the back already heavily laden by Bush? That's the best you've got? McCain calls Biden's plan for separating Iraq into three parts "cockamamie" ... but that's exactly what's happening right now.<fn> They don't answer questions; how much can you reduce dependence? No number. Would you repeat your campaign's accusations to your opponent's face? Implicit no. Why are we constantly talking about a plumber who makes more than $250,000 per year? Why the F&%K doesn't the moderator get to the heart of the problem that BOTH of them claim that their plans will be better for 95% of America. Who's right? Are both plans the same? Who's lying? Smirk much? <iq>Democrats have been in charge for the last two years and see what they've done with it ...</iq> ... smirk smugly. Blink much? McCain is very vague ... he says "I think a lot of decisions were bad" or "I have a lot of solutions" ... name one. I have a lot of them, how can I name just one? McCain likes to say why Obama did things (he says Obama voted against Roberts because of ideological reasons ... even though Roberts is seriously partial) John McCain has such a bitter tone -- he likes to make side-comments, then say, but anyway ... and not leave the comment open to response. He also likes to make "big eyes" to indicate disbelief. John McCain seems like a total dick. He's so contemptuous the entire time Obama's speaking. McCain equates pro-choice with pro-abortion. Nothing from the moderator. Obama listens while McCain doodles. Obama listens, but could be said to be listening condescendingly. Obama's laugh seems real and mirthful. Obama laughs at McCain, which could be interpreted as rude, even though what McCain is saying really is laughable. John McCain thinks that wanting to reform something is ok even if that thing is horrifically broken. He in fact accuses Barack of not caring enough to even try. John McCain thinks that kids with autism are the most important demographic right now (he mentioned them 3 times ... although Trig has Down's, no? Does McCain even know the difference?) John McCain cracks himself up -- especially when he's being a dick. McCain totally just snorted. The handshake at the end -- John McCain is just not a relaxed guy, Obama makes him horrifically nervous. He practically barked "Good Job" three or four times, while Obama was totally smooth. McCain really gave every impression he was barely holding his shit together. He was also totally allowed to get away with stating Obama's positions for him. The wild innacuracies were presumably deliberate. <h>Third-Party Candidates</h> Third-party candidates were, of course, excluded once again this year. As far as the mainstream media---and the two mainstream parties---are concerned, they're not even running. Since the debates are sponsored by the two parties and are not legally part of the electoral process, the exclusion of candidates is technically legal, though not exactly what most people imagine when the think of a healthy democracy. The media is only too happy to comply because third-party candidates are seriouly bad for advertising. It's doubtful that a single advertiser would remain if any of the network hosts were brave enough to invite Ralph Nader on the air, with his severe views on corporate malfeasance and his lack of reticence at voicing them. McCain and Obama, on the other hand, have no trouble talking about corporations as if each of them were a bundle of joy, a gift from the free market to mankind to be nurtured and spoiled. Anyway, the article (also available as audio or video) <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/16/breaking_the_sound_barrier_third_party" source="Democracy Now!">Breaking the Sound Barrier: Third-Party Candidates Ralph Nader & Cynthia McKinney Respond to Final McCain-Obama Debate</a> offers a look a how the third-party candidates would have answered and responded in the debates. McKinney answers questions about as well as Palin. She just repeated her stump speech, often without relation to the topic (e.g. on Joe the Plumber & taxes, she talked about alternative energy), while Nader was on topic and quite good, ripping both McCain and Obama for kowtowing to corporate power. He announced a rally on Wall Street and even told people to go donate to McKinney's campaign as well as his. <hr> <ft>You'll excuse the improper phonetic spelling; we don't support displaying a long "a" here (the "a" with a line over it).</ft> <ft>It seems that any country that does not kowtow to U.S. demands and/or holds some amount of power over the U.S. through raw resources, is to be considered a "rogue" nation.</ft> <ft>was.</ft> <ft>The joke is that he's a dotty old man who's lost his dog, whose name is Mr. Puddles, presumably because he is also old and no longer as house-trained as he used to be. Ah, the vagaries of age---mocking them never gets old.</ft> <ft>As reported recently by Peter Galbraith, who noted that the Sunni hold the center, the Shia the other major cities and the Kurds, of course, still hold Kurdistan.</ft>