debate postmortem

  • If you live in Tennessee, you can get a health care plan in Arizona? W. T. F? Oh wait, I get it, wormholes !
  • Using my powers of logic, if we had identified where Osama Bin Laden is, and that turned out to be in Pakistan, and Pakistan refused to target him, John McCain would absolutely not target a strike against him. Obama says he would, and McCain seems to think this is some sort of abominable stance. Color me confused.
  • If McCain knows how to get Osama Bin Laden, as he claims to, maybe he should put "COUNTRY FIRST!" and share that intelligence with the military. Just a thought. Telegraph your punches to Petraeus, dude. 
  • "That one." Yikes. McCain is a bitter, bitter man. 
  • If you didn't catch it, McCain patted Obama on the back, and when Obama went to shake his hand, McCain turned away, leaving Obama left to shake Cindy McCain's hand. See above bullet point. 
  • These debates are hella boring. Obama is crushing, but I think we know all we need to know. Can we vote now? 
  • I am back in Sacramento for a few days, so the use of "hella" is fully justified, thank you very much.
  • If your drinking game had "fundamental difference", "my friends", "Petraeus ", or "I've been there," I hope your hospital stay for alcohol poisoning is going well. 
  • Apparently John McCain's foreign policy boils down to: "Ask David Petraeus ". I respect Petraeus , he's brought an intellectual (elitist?) approach to counterinsurgency that seems to work. But God he is not, contrary to what McCain thinks. The President's job is to lead. If you want to consult with Petraeus , and use his strategies, that's fine. But at least pretend you had something to do with it fer chrissake. Shit, if all it takes is saying "whatever you say, General Petraeus ", then I could be president. Heck, then Sarah Palin is qualified to be president, although that sentence may come out as "say Petraeus you whatever General".
  • Trying to be impartial as I can, which means not very impartial at all, I just can't see how this debate was close. McCain certainly wasn't awful (except for the "that one" thing), but on issue after issue he simply lost. It seems like the default setting for political commentary is "John McCain wins on foreign policy", but can someone please explain to me why? Obama nailed the foreign policy issues. How to deal with Pakistan. Sitting down with our friends and enemies to get shit done. Repairing our international stature and diplomatic relations. On and on. Where exactly is McCain is correct on foreign policy? All of you shouting "THE SURGE!", please google "Anbar Awakening ".  
  • I'm at a hotel with limited television choices, so I am on my third viewing. There is no question Obama won the debate going away. Is it possible to have a layered, nuanced debate? This is like watching Syriana repeatedly, discovering some new angle every time. 
Post a Comment