Summarizing The 2nd Presidential Debate
Tonight Senators McCain and Obama engaged in the second of three general election debates sponsored by the bi-partisan commission on presidential debates, this time with a format known as "town hall," in which members of a live audience both in the hall and over the internet were allowed to directly question the candidates.
Although the tone of the campaign between Obama and McCain has turned distinctly nasty and negative in the last seven days, polls indicated that voters were (if they were honest with pollsters) less impressed with negative attacks and more concerned about the economy and how either candidate might guide this country in troubled times.
Here is a summary of the questions and the answers each candidate gave. If you want to just get to my analysis about how both men fared, scroll down to "how did the candidates do?"
The first question of the night went directly to that issue and generally set the tone for the rest of the evening.
Obama spoke generally about the need for reform of the system and the need for change while McCain began by talking about how solutions for the economy were tied to his favorite issue (after the "surge") with energy independence.
A moment of non-sequitor ensued, and McCain quickly steered back to stressing the need to prop up sagging home values. He didn't explain how this linked back to energy independence.
Brokaw then interjected with a question about who might serve as the next Secretary of Treasury. McCain suggested Warrebn Buffett (an Obama suporter!) or Meg Whitman (sp?) from Ebay (one of his supporters). Obama said whomever it was would need to be committed to growing jobs and administering tax cuts for the middle class.
The next question followed this thread and stayed with the theme of how each candidate might actually fix the problems homeowners face?
McCain chose to blame Fanny and Freddie, and reminded people that he had warned against them before. Obama said that the problem today was about the credit market, and federal government needed to work in that arena. He then used that tactically as an opportunity to say that this was the product of deregulation of the markets--and that some regulation was required to protect people in the future. This is Obama's new theme: saying he agrees with a free market, so long as there is some regulation to curb against abuse.
McCain said he wrote a letter warning of the crisis--and that Obama's name was not on it. Again, a moment of non-sequitur.
Another question for Obama: How can we trust either of you with our money, when both parties got us into this global financial crisis?
Obama said he could understand her outrage, and acknowledged blame could be spread. He then reverted to mentioning President Bush and tying him to increased deficits and spending--and then linking Bush and McCain.
Obama said he would spend differently--but also make significant cuts. (Although he did not elaborate what he would cut).
McCain commented that he had a record of bipartisanship and that was necessary for reform. He asserted that Obama had never taken on his own party. He also started the negative attacks (at 7:19) by asserting that Obama had the most "liberal spending record" of anyone in the senate, while claiming that he himself had never engaged in support of wasteful spending.
Brokaw then asked McCain to priortize these three economic issues: health care, entitlement programs and energy policy.
McCain responded said we could work on all three--but focused on developing energy independence. He also asserted that some of the money our government spends overseas goes to terrorism.
Obama said energy was critical to the picture and (agreeing with McCain) energy independence would be the first priorty. Health care would be second. Entitlement programs would be third. He also said McCain's record was not what he claimed, and that his proposed tax cuts would go to big oil companies, placing more of a tax burden on individual taxpayers.
An internet question then asked: What sacrifices will you make to help people realize the American dream?
McCain said: eliminate wasteful spending the federal level--especially with defense spending (where he claimed expertise). He said he wanted a spending freeze--although (???) that would not apply to defense spending.
Huh?
Obama then commented that we all remember 9/11--an event which forced us all to work together. He then noted that Bush missed an opportunity not to develop this spirit of community, and encourage more of us to think about all of us. He ten clicked off a number of energy proposals that government needed to support, and how that had to be matched by individuals willing to serve their communities through entitities like Peace Corps or military service.
Huh?
Brokaw then asked Obama: how would you convince people that government can show discipline with its economy?
Obama said, essentially, that a new president would need to lead by example.
McCain then accused Obama of constantly manufacturing new tax proposals--andf that he secretly planned to tax 50% of small business revenue. He did not elaborate on that statistic.
He also asserted that he would not give tax breaks for the wealthy; rather, he wants to give middle class voters a $5 thousand dollar tax credit.
Brokaw brought a new question: would you give Congress a deadline for fixing social security?
Obama said two years might be tight, but that he would fix it in the first term./ He then piggybacked on McCain's earlier tax argument, saying his (Obama's) tax plan would cut taxes for 95% of taxpayers. He also said only a small percentage of small businesses made more than $250,000 (the cutoff for application of tax breaks). That would not apply to the number of people (50%) implied in McCain's points.
McCain said he would answer the question: he asserted that fixing social security was easy (huh?); it just reqyuired leadership and the ability to challenge your own party.
He said medicare would be a little more difficult, and that he would want to streamline the involvement of Congress.
He then went negative again, asserting that Obama had voted 94 times for higher taxes--and that he (McCain) had not.
The next question came from a voter named Ingrid Jackson--and went toMcCain: what would you do to grow our economy and help the environment?
McCain said he believed climate change was real, and that he worked with Joe Lieberman to create bipartisan legislation to fight climate change. He then reminded voters that nuclear power was necessary--and that Obama opposed that. He was also wind and solar power.
Obama said that climate change was a preeminent problem for this generation--but the problem also provided an opportunity for new jobs. He also said that he favored sizable investment at the federal level to encourage this in the private sector.
Brokaw asked: should we fund a Manhattan project approach to solve energy dependence--or turn it over to the rivate sector.
He also piggybacked on Obama's answer to say he voted against that legsilation for alternative energy because it was favored by President Bush and laden with pork barrel spending. He reminded voters that Obama voted for it.
The next question from the audience from Lindsay Tweller: Should health care be treated as a commodity?
Obama started with a stump speech response that he travels all over the country and constantly hears from voters that they are concerned. He then described his health care plan again, stressing that if more people were in the system, it would drive the costs down. He also said that no one would be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions. He argued that McCain's solution (a $5 thousand dollar tax credit) would not solve anything because it wouldn't force prices down.
McCain said you could do things to force efficiencies, but that Obama was for mandates--which would hurt small businesses that would have to pay for employee health care. His solution (the tax credit) would allow people to make choices.
Brokaw asked: is health care a privilege, a right or a responsibility. McCain said a privilege but that government and small businesses had responsibilities here.
Obama said: it is a right. He reminded voters that his mother died of cancer at 53 and spent her last days arguing with insurance companies about pre-existing conditions. He also corrected McCain and said there would be no mandates for small business--only tax credits. He agreed that all people would have to get coverage, but argued this would help children. He reminded people that McCain voted against extending health coverage to children.
He said that government had a responsibility to make sure health insurance providers did not cheat consumers. This requires (he said) regulation--not deregulation.
The next question from the audience (shifting to foreign affairs): How will our economic problems affect our ability to play peacemaker in the world?
McCain said we have economic problems, but that America is uniquely qualified to lead others around the world. He then reminded people of his time in the military, and of his experience with the surge, etc. He suggested that Obama is not ready to lead.
Obama replied that last time said he (Obama) did not understand--and thhen agreed this was true: he didn't understand why we went into Iraq after 9/11 when we were supposed to be fighting bin Laden in Afghanistan. He didn't understand why were spending $10 billion a month in Iraq when the Iraqis have a budget surplus of $70 billion?
Brokaw then asked: is there a Obama doctrine for the use of force where national security issues are not at stake?
Obama said we have moral responsibilities to act. He compared the holocaust and contemporary Darfur, and said we had moral responsibilities to act. He also acknowledged that we couldn't solve every problem on the planet.
McCain said if we had followed Obama in Iraq, al Qaeda would have reestablished itself and our troops would have come home in defeat.
Huh?
He then agreed we had moral responsibilities--but that had to be tempered with leadership. He cited his own record of opposing our intervention when the goals to be reached were not attainable.
The next question: Should the U.S. violate Pakistani sovereignty and chase bin Laden?
Obama said we wouldn't be in this if we hadn't been sidetracked by Iraq. If we had focused on al Qaeda and Afghanistan and Pakistan, we wouldn't have this problem. Going forward, he said, requires that the USA act there to destroy al Qaeda where it has the opportunity.
McCain said: (paraphrasing Teddy Roosevelt) Speak softly but carry a big stick. Obama (he claimed) just anounced he would attack Pakistan.
He then asserted that our relationship with Pakistan is critical--and we need to support them. We need to do the same thing there that we're doing in Iraq: get the people to see us as friends. Work with them.
Obama said: I did not say--invade Pakistan. I said, if we have the opportunity to take out bin Laden--we should take it. He reminded people that McCain was the one who made jokes about bombing Iran or North Korea. That's not, he said, speaking softly.
McCain said this wasn't true--and that he was only joking.
McCain said he knew how to get bin Laden, but he wouldn't announce it or telegraph his punches.
Brokaw then said: the outgoing British Commander in Afghanistan said we have to negotiate with the Taliban. What are your thoughts?
Obama said getting more troops there is the first thing. He also said that the current government therehad to be more responsive to his own people.
McCain said he agreed with Obama there--but that we also had to do a surge. He reminded people that Obama would not admit he was wrong about the surge.
Brokaw then asked: how can we curb Russia's tendencies without producing another cold war?
McCain said we didn't want another cold war, but that we did need to challenge Russia and make them understand there would be penalties for bad behavior. He wanted to use the G-8 for sanctions and leverage. He said he had "looked into Vladimir Putin's eyes..."
Obama said the resurgence of Russia was a challenge for the next administration--but that leadership was need to help the former Soviet satellite nations develop economically. He said the Russian incursion into Georgia was forseeable, and that the Bush administration could/should have anticipated this. We needed to be proactive, not reactive.
Brokaw: Yes or no, under Putin, is Russia an "evil empire?"
Obama said: they have behaved with evil impulses.
McCain said: Maybe. But I thnk we can deal with them.
The next question from the crowd (a retired navy chief): If Iran attacked Israel, would you respond militarily (unilaterally), or wait for UN sanction?
McCain said that waiting for the UN is not a good idea. The problem is that Iran is close to acquiring nuclear weapons. He asserted Obama wants to talk to them without preconditions--that's a mistake. He said as well: we must never allow another holocaust.
Obama said: Iran must never get a nuclear weapon. He said he would do all in his power to prevent it. He also said that we must do all that we can to prevent this (an attack on Israel) from ever happening. You can do this, for example, by creating energy independence--which means less money/clout/power for Iran. He also said he is willing to talk to Iran. Refusing to talk to them, he added, is exactly what drove them to delevop a nuclear program.
The last question: What don't you know, and how will you learn it?
Mostly I learn from my wife. But seriously--"I know that I wouldn't be standing here of this country hadn't given me opportunities." He then asked if we Americans would pass on similar opportunities and the American dream to the next generation? What was necessary was fundamental change.
This did not answer the question--but in fairness, it wasn't an easy question.
McCain had more time to think about it-and said he didn't know what the unexpected future would be. He then spoke about his family life as a child, and how people had to rely on one another in tough times. He said that he did believe in this country.
So, in retrospect, how did the two candidates do?
We expected more negativity than (thankfully) they gave. After days of suggesting that the "gloves were off," McCain was distinctly mild in his attacks on Obama, both in content and in tone. He did (a) suggest that Obama had voted for pork barrel spending measures, and (b) criticize his health care program for giving government unwarranted power, and (c) repeat his assertion that Obama was inexperienced in foreign affairs--this time because he was willing to "telegraph his punches" against al Qaeda--but in comparison to the last debate, and even the last several days, this was a milder John McCain. His attacks were not as personal as they had been before.
Perhaps McCain, stung by the public reaction to his last debate performance, decided that a more restrained approach would be called for tonight.
By contrast, Obama seemed more on his guard tonight--and more willing to attack McCain, although never really on a personal level. He attacked the Arizona senator's voting record, and repeatedly made the need for government regulation of the financial sector a sin qua non for the next administration. The latter point, he stressed, was not something McCain would be willing to do, because of his record of supporting deregulation in order a free market system.
By my count, Obama stressed this last point at least four times (maybe five)--enough that it marked a contrast with McCain on handling the economy. Since "the economy "is THE issue for voters (especially undedicided voters) right now--this allowed Obama to imply that his brand of change would be about changing the climate of deregulatiopn that allowed the current economic crisis to occur in the first place.
Each man made their points in a more reasonable discussion on health care, and both had their moments on foreign policy.
In the end, this debate very likely only reinforced the preferences that committed voters already had--which brings us back to uncommitted voters. Where will they fall here? Neither man made a huge gaffe or had a special moment. McCain will probably benefit frm sounding less negative than before--but the slight nod here goes to Obama for tying the economic mess to a failure from deregulation. Neither man offered a failsafe solution for making the economy better, but Obama was more effective in reassuring voters that he understood how this happened.
I would guess that the polls will continue to trend in Obama's favor, creating larger questions for McCain about how to change the discourse about this campaign. Reheating old arguments from the Clinton campaign (attacking Obama's character and his association with people like Reverend Wright) is unlikely to do more for McCain than it did for Clinton.
If he is to salvage his chances with the time left, the key for the Arizona senator is to focus on the economy. This is the issue that will torpedo his campaign if everything continues as it is. But as dangerous as it appears, it can also be his salvation. Neither man has a specific plan to fix the problem affecting credit markets, nervous investors, and a fragile, volatile stock market. People--voters--want to be reassured.
Now is the time for both men to be very specific. Fly the plane at fifty feet, so that all the details are clear--and avoid flying at five thousand feet, speaking only in generalties. If neither man is specific, Obama will win the presidency because voters will punish McCain and Republicans for the policies of the Bush adminstration.
One more debate to go. Stay tuned.
