Senator John McCain caused a media frenzy after attempting to get out of the presidential debates on Friday, stating that he would suspend his campaign until a rescue plan was put in place in Wall Street.
But after all the suspense leading up to yesterday's forum at the University of Mississippi in Oxford, it became abundantly clear to those watching the 98-minute exchange that Americans will not be getting the change they are hoping for under the GOP candidate or his opponent Sen. Barack Obama.
The Polls
Media pundits say the debate was a draw, with no surprises or "knockout" statements. Others say Obama, whose sole mission was to survive the debates and not flail on foreign policy issues, took a slight lead from his opponent.
Forbes.com polls indicate that both candidates fared better than their counterpart on different issues, with Obama being viewed favorably on the economy and McCain leading far ahead on foreign policy.
How the news site came to that conclusion is anybody's guess. The financial meltdown in Wall Street was the top concern at the debate, yet Obama gave no clear solutions on how to get out of it.
He starts off by blaming the mess on eight years of bad fiscal policies under the Bush Administration and then links McCain to the debacle, saying that the Arizona senator supported the president's policies.
But instead of strengthening his case by criticizing Bush's $700-billion bailout plan, Obama declined to take a position on the proposal, stating instead that he had not yet looked at the language of the plan.
Meanwhile, McCain said he would probably vote for the package.
Moderator, Jim Lehrer, tried to get another response from them by asking what approach they would take to the financial crisis. Again, Obama did not give specific solutions to the financial industry dilemna but said that he would give tax breaks to 95% of working families as well as close corporate tax loopholes.
McCain's solution to the crisis was shocking. "How about a spending freeze on everything but defense, veterans and entitlements?" he said.
Why the major networks did not hone in on that statement is anybody's guess.
Obama ended the segment on domestic policy issues by speaking about the importance of healthcare, early childhood education and alternative fuel sources but gave no specifics.
Foreign policy
Mainstream media says the two differ most over foreign policy, and in particular the war in Iraq. Obama has called for ending the war, but did not demand an immediate troop withdrawal. Meanwhile, McCain maintained that the fighting is "central to combating terrorism and stabilizing the Middle East".
McCain then tried to get Obama to admit that the surge of troops have led to successes in the region. Obama did not have a good comeback, thereby leading some mainstream journalists to count it as a win for McCain.
"The current strategy has succeeded, and we are winning in Iraq," McCain said.
Considering how much preparation the two have had prior to the debates, Obama's silence on the surge was deliberate. Not wanting to appear soft on "terrorism", he did not refute claims that the surge had led to a decrease in violence, but re-directed the dialogue by questioning McCain's ability to govern Iraq.
Obama also set out to prove he was nobody's dove by advocating for a troop increase in Afghanistan. "We have seen Afghanistan worsen, deteriorate," he said. "We need more troops there. We need more resources there."
He also hinted taking strong actions against Iran and Pakistan.
Towards the end of the segment, McCain showed his foreign policy prowess by giving a in-depth account of Russia's invasion of Georgia.
Obama then gave his take on the situation:
(Russians) actions in Georgia were unacceptable. They were unwarranted. And at this point, it is absolutely critical for the next president to make clear that we have to follow through on our six-party -- or the six-point cease-fire. They have to remove themselves from South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
While critics say Obama needed only to survive the foreign policy debates in order to get ahead in the debate, he showed he was capable of holding his own on foreign policies and took a bold stance against Russia's actions.
But while he may have passed the test by not bungling on international issues, it was McCain - who was triumphant on the surge question and long on specifics - who came out on top on foreign policy issues.
The same old
Obama's campaign of hope and change captured the imagination of the nation, however Friday's much-anticipated debate revealed that neither are able to deliver.
Both candidates gave no real solutions to the country's deepening economic crisis, but fell back on the same cookie-cutter solutions they have long advocated for - tax cuts, no tax cuts, an end to foreign oil dependence, a freeze on spending, nuclear power.
It is baffling to hear networks saying Obama triumphed on economic issues, since he provided absolutely no new insight or problem-solving measures to avert a full-blown economic disaster.
On foreign policies, McCain may have sounded more knowledgeable but his answers to international conflicts were the same as Obama's, with both advocating for aggressive action in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, if deemed necessary.
In the end, both had advocated for the status quo by failing to challenge the Bush Administration's domestic and foreign policies.
What's this about change? At the debate, it was much ado' about nothing.
Recent Comments