The debate was by-and-large a snoozer - an utterly predictable result given that we're dealing with a pair of politicians who've been drilled and rehearsed more ferociously than a kiddie beauty pageant contestant. The best you can say is that Juggy scored more style points than Crip-Arms - Obama is a much more fluid and graceful shit-shoveler than McCain who occasionally gives one the impression that he actually thinks this nonsense might be beneath him. Of course the lefty media is claiming Obama won the thing - they say McCain blinked a lot and looked grouchy and "troll-like" (is he an Olsen twin?) and that Obama stood up well against McCain's efforts to make him seem like a green rookie. They say McCain didn't look at Obama enough. Did they want him to make go-go eyes at him the way they all do?
The debate dealt largely with economic issues, at least during the part at the beginning when I was still paying attention. Jim Lehrer - he's still alive - got the candidates to talk about the bail-out deal being cooked up in Congress and their overall feelings about the economy. Both nominees think things are bad, and think the other guy's party is responsible. They argued a little about whether taxes should be raised or lowered or left alone. Where would politicians be without the issue of taxes? Things got contentious when the conversation drifted into Iraq and McCain accused Obama of not knowing the difference between strategy and tactics. I hate to break the news to Gimpy, but trying to make Obama look stupid is not going to work. Juggy may be the darling of the cool people but he himself is an uber-geek. If there's something he doesn't know, he's going to learn it, and be ready if it comes up. That right there is reason enough to favor him, especially after 8 years of George "Ain't Big on Book-Learnin'" Bush.
In the end it doesn't really matter what anyone said of course - the experts will spend the next few days ignoring substance and focusing on style. The McCain blinking thing will get a lot of play, especially from the comedians - Darrell Hammond is probably in front of his mirror right now practicing. I don't know what McCain is supposed to do about something like that though. Botox his eyelids? It's not his fault he's a twitching, angry mess - blame the gooks for that one.
And what is some would-be impressionist supposed to do with Obama? What's his hook? With Reagan you had the head-bob, with George #1 the prissy voice, with Clinton the lip bite, Bush #2 the smirk and the dipshit laugh and the squint and a thousand other hilarious psychotic tics. Obama's hook is...he doesn't have a hook. He's blander than an unbuttered noodle. But he's not a droning Frankenstein like John Kerry or a condescending twat like Al Gore. He's calm and patient and above all he doesn't blink too much. He doesn't seem like he's about to start grinding his teeth. He seems ready to pop open a malt liquor and put on some Al Green. He should be wearing a smoking jacket out there. He should have one hand in his pocket and a broad hanging off him (at least then he'd be interesting).
As to whether either of these men is qualified to steer the ship of state through the dangerous reef of the modern world...frankly, I don't think there's any such thing as a man who's "qualified" to have as much power as the U.S. President. Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate I've ever heard who said he was willing to cede power back to the Congress and the states where it belongs...and he's an anti-evolutionist crackpot. Apparently, being a serious Presidential candidate means supporting the continued perversion of the Founding Fathers' design of checks-and-balances. Presidents shouldn't be chosen for their inspirational qualities or grand visions or soaring characters though - they should be picked because they're qualified to hold down an executive office. That's a subject that ought to be raised in a debate, and the candidates' answers would be very intriguing indeed. Unfortunately, nobody ever addresses those deeper philosophical issues. Everyone's looking for sound-bites, both the candidates and the people asking the questions. Want real substance? Don't bother looking to either of these programmed schmos.
