I originally posted this on Facebook. I reprint it here:
Well, I thought Obama was amazing. McCain made no obvious mistakes, but Obama had much more substance and clearly “understood” the issues. He provided plans, while McCain merely claimed familiarity or mischaracterized Obama’s record.
Is it me, or did McCain often look angry? Obama stayed cool under pressure and handled everything beautifully.
Naturally, I expect the pundits to have seen a completely different debate than the one I witnessed.
My wife wishes Obama wouldn’t be so specific and detailed, but I disagree. The details are what I love about him. What I would like to see is just ONE reporter seek the same kind of detail from McCain. They all call for Obama’s plan, but none of them demand McCain’s. Last night, McCain had two rhetorical devices: 1) take potshots at Obama and 2) remind everybody that they “knew him,” even if they (and he) had no idea what he actually stood for.
I loved the exchange between Pat Buchanan and Keith Olbermann afterwards, when Buchanan declared McCain to be the guy who could look leaders in the eye and tell them they’re wrong. Olbermann asked, “How can McCain look these leaders in the eye, when he won’t even make a glance at Barack Obama?” I wonder if Deirdre’s suggested Metamucil would solve that problem.
Here are my hopes for the future: 1) The next moderator doesn’t always give McCain the last word, as Lehrer did for every question. 2) That Sarah Palin makes Admiral Stockdale look like Cicero.
No Comments