Newsmaker

Who won the debate? That is the all important question. From my own personal vantage point, no one won, which someone pointed out means Obama won. By virtue of being ahead, a tie means he is still ahead. McCain has been desperate for a game changer, and he didn’t get one at the debate.

Of course, the pundits are pundits, and actual voter reaction is most important; so here it is:

CBS Insta Poll: Obama 39%, McCain 25% and 36% not sure who won

MediaCurves.com: Independents gave Obama a 61% to 38% win.

CNN: Obama “did better” 51%, McCain “did better” 38%. Men even split. Women Obama 59% to McCain 41%. (Maybe as my classmate pointed out McCain in HDTV is not pretty)

Insider Advantage: Obama 42%, McCain’s 41% and 17% not sure who won.

And of course, Sunday’s Gallup Tracking Poll: Obama 50%, McCain 42%

Things the pundits said that I think are important:

Pat Buchanan (Also, how did this right wing yahoo/semi-racist warm his way into my heart with his charmingly unbiased reporting) recalled that while working for Reagan, the cowboy did not do that well in a debate against Mondale. But as the media buzz grew people’s perceptions of Reagan’s victory grew to above 80%, despite Pat’s belief that Reagan was terrible. So expect this again and forever.

John McCain visibly could not stand Obama. McCain never once looked Obama in the eye.

McCain got angry a few times, repeatedly told Obama he didn’t understand, and appeared flummoxed. Not to mention, McCain kept referring to how old he is. While Obama stayed calm and was not afraid to agree with McCain. Possible perception being that McCain is an angry old man with a temper (we have heard this before).

When Obama gave his laundry list of things he believes McCain was wrong about, McCain retreated to talking about how he stands up for wounded veterans (a point having nothing to do with Obama’s complaints). At some point he will be perceived as hiding behind the flag.

McCain’s best moment was when he said the next president won’t have to worry about winning the war in Iraq, but instead when and how we leave. This is an extremely good mantra for his campaign.

Obama did not do well on the Iran issue. And the exchange about Henry Kissinger was silly.

My thoughts:

McCain really did look grumpy, angry, insert various adjectives he needs to avoid here. Substantively though, he did rather well especially considering the first third of the debate was on the economy, the subject he has failed to talk about correctly for quite some time. On the flip side, Democrats don’t do well on foreign policy, the next two debates won’t be on foreign policy, and Obama avoided damage.

McCain was constantly on script and Obama was not. McCain said Obama just doesn’t understand, and yet Obama seemed to understand foreign policy quite well.

McCain’s views of the crisis in Georgia are horrible (please see my post on the CIAR panel on the conflict).

Obama missed the opportunities to point out that we still haven’t found Osama, at least not in a clear way. Just say, “Where is Bin Laden?” and say it a lot. Also, Obama’s stance on Iraq is becoming increasingly convoluted. He is trying to explain that McCain was wrong to want to go in there in the first place, but he can’t reconcile this with the success of the surge. He should point out that McCain advocated for the surge under the pretext that it would give the Iraq’s the opportunity to come to a political solution, but no political solution has come to pass.

Obama’s best moment was when following John McCain’s explanation of how the dead soldiers bracelet that he wears around his wrist proves he understands the troops better, Obama replied, “You know John I have a bracelet too…”

So basically, if stylistic issues matter, Obama probably won by a lot simply because McCain would not condescend himself to make eye contact with Obama. On the other hand, if substance matters it was a draw and both sides should be kicking themselves for failed opportunities to win.

Finally, John McCain was born before the Depression ended (1936). So when at the beginning of the debate he said that this financial crisis was the worst in his life time, he either incorrectly remembered when he was born or has come full circle and now believes that we are royally screwed.

Up next, Joe “I have foot in mouth disease” Biden v. Sarah “Every time I open my mouth I cause a crisis” Palin in what will undoubtedly be a glorious if not cringe worthy circus side show…Sweet!!!

So last week I went to The Cornell International Affairs Review’s (CIAR) panel discussion on the conflict in Georgia that erupted when Russia moved into Georgia’s separatist South Ossetian and Abkhazian regions. The speakers were Eastern European expert Valerie Bunce (You should take her post-communist transitions class) and Irakli Kakabadze, a visiting scholar and participant in Georgia’s independence movement, known as the “Rose Revolution.”

What shocked me was how biased the US media coverage was. Georgia is one of Bush’s closest allies and, as Bunce explained, one of the only places in the world that likes him. The fact is that this conflict was not all Russia’s fault. The US helped provoke this, and the Georgian president helped provoke this. At the end of the day, Russia did invade a sovereign nation and that is bad. Russia’s doing this was ultimately stupid because, as both Bunce and Kakabadze pointed, out Russia has over 80 potential separatist regions.

This talk was a strong reminder of the dangers of basing a state upon ethnic or religious affiliation instead of intellectual understandings of freedoms and rights.

Here is a bullet point summary of what I learned:

• From Bunce
  • This conflict is not local but the US and Russia pissing each other off
  • The started when Georgia sent forces to the separatist regions to defeat militants
  • Georgia is tied closely to Bush and Cheney, and they were pressured to act
  • Saakashvili knows he couldn’t keep these territories, but provoked the war to package their loss in a politically beneficial way
  • The Russians invaded because they were pissed off at the West and think NATO is trying to destroy their national sovereignty
  • Putin just needed to show he still has regional sovereignty
  • Saakashvili wanted to keep power and save face as did Putin; so this staged violence helped both of them
• From Kakabadze
  • Saakashvili has abandoned democracy and has embraced Bush’s neoconservative world view…oh and McCain’s comments were stupid and unhelpful
  • Saakashvili had come to power in the democratic Rose Revolution, but as Lord Acton said, “absolute power corrupts absolutely”
  • Saakashvili wants to join NATO because war is profitable…The Military Industrial Complex
  • “How did America produce both Bob Dylan and George Bush?”
  • The US stopped giving civil society support, but instead sent lots of guns and guns tend to get used to kill people
  • We should create peace zones, which the European Union Secures
    • It will protect the West’s oil pipelines
    • It will prevent NATO’s reach and make Russia feel safe
  • We need more UN, fewer police states