2008 Woodie Awards
No Clear Winner in Presidential Debate
The first presidential debate for the 2008 election is full of contradictions, tension, and untruths
Joe Sirianni '10
Issue date: 10/2/08 Section: Commentary
Friday night's first Presidential debate between Senators Barack Obama and John McCain can be described entirely in two words: Mind-numbing. Each candidate was too busy selling himself to really respond to any of the questions with the energy and assertive nature I have become accustomed to seeing in a presidential contender. In fact, everything about the debate was simply awful; from the seemingly awkward attempts to encourage candidate interaction by PBS commentator Jim Lehrer, to the silent, tension-filled atmosphere among those present at the University of Mississippi auditorium. Even the blue-drenched backdrop was too plain. The debate simply did not live up to the hype.
Neither candidate was able to ignite in a way that was noticeably attractive to the viewers. What the American voter really wants is to travel back in time 28 years to the historic debate between Presidential incumbent Jimmy Carter and Gov. Ronald Reagan. This contest, which was the only one that year, took place just a week before the election and arguably decided its outcome. Reagan's closing remarks hit the nail on the head with voters in 1980 when he posed the question: "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" Nothing Barack Obama or John McCain said in the 97 minutes of their first debate came close to a line comparable to Reagan's. Instead, each candidate not only appeared nervous throughout the entire exchange, but often bestowed a demeanor of great seriousness and at times, irritation. Each candidate rattled off his cleanly rehearsed talking points he had been practicing for weeks. It was impossible to overlook McCain declaring multiple times that he is rarely referred to as the, "Miss Congeniality of Congress." In contrast, Obama seemed to have a "fundamental difference" with just about everything the senior-Senator from Arizona had to say.
Contradiction was a key theme in this debate with the candidates sparring over a range of economic and foreign policy issues. Both spewed out facts about the other's record, numbers about tax policies, and spending budgets, but every stated "fact" was challenged more often than not by the other as incorrect. I wouldn't be able to count on my fingers the number of times Barack Obama said, "John, that's simply not true." Now we know that politicians rarely lie, they simply leave out or exaggerate certain facts in order to make their argument sound more appealing than that of their opponents. But Obama and McCain are overwhelmingly guilty of spin in this first debate. Obama continually stated that 95 percent of the American people will receive a tax-cut under his new policies. The real number is more like 80, and only pertains to people who are married with families. McCain greatly embellished his claim that the United States pays over $700 billion for foreign oil to hostile countries. The truth is that a significant amount of that oil is imported from some of our closest allies: The United Kingdom, Mexico, and Canada. Also, the number is closer to $550 billion. Obama questioned why the United States was spending so much in Iraq when the Iraqis have a $79 billion surplus. That number is not even close to the $29.4 billion the Iraqi government actually has in bank reserves.
Neither candidate was able to ignite in a way that was noticeably attractive to the viewers. What the American voter really wants is to travel back in time 28 years to the historic debate between Presidential incumbent Jimmy Carter and Gov. Ronald Reagan. This contest, which was the only one that year, took place just a week before the election and arguably decided its outcome. Reagan's closing remarks hit the nail on the head with voters in 1980 when he posed the question: "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" Nothing Barack Obama or John McCain said in the 97 minutes of their first debate came close to a line comparable to Reagan's. Instead, each candidate not only appeared nervous throughout the entire exchange, but often bestowed a demeanor of great seriousness and at times, irritation. Each candidate rattled off his cleanly rehearsed talking points he had been practicing for weeks. It was impossible to overlook McCain declaring multiple times that he is rarely referred to as the, "Miss Congeniality of Congress." In contrast, Obama seemed to have a "fundamental difference" with just about everything the senior-Senator from Arizona had to say.
Contradiction was a key theme in this debate with the candidates sparring over a range of economic and foreign policy issues. Both spewed out facts about the other's record, numbers about tax policies, and spending budgets, but every stated "fact" was challenged more often than not by the other as incorrect. I wouldn't be able to count on my fingers the number of times Barack Obama said, "John, that's simply not true." Now we know that politicians rarely lie, they simply leave out or exaggerate certain facts in order to make their argument sound more appealing than that of their opponents. But Obama and McCain are overwhelmingly guilty of spin in this first debate. Obama continually stated that 95 percent of the American people will receive a tax-cut under his new policies. The real number is more like 80, and only pertains to people who are married with families. McCain greatly embellished his claim that the United States pays over $700 billion for foreign oil to hostile countries. The truth is that a significant amount of that oil is imported from some of our closest allies: The United Kingdom, Mexico, and Canada. Also, the number is closer to $550 billion. Obama questioned why the United States was spending so much in Iraq when the Iraqis have a $79 billion surplus. That number is not even close to the $29.4 billion the Iraqi government actually has in bank reserves.
Be the first to comment on this story