Obama said their differences in economic plans were like the difference between a scalpel and a hatchet- I think that accurately describes the differences between these candidates in general.
I think that it was both necessary and unnecessary to press the point of asking what each candidate would give up out of their platform in light of the current economic climate.Unnecessary because any thinking person would realize that that question is really impossible to answer until this whole thing shakes out and the new President is in office with the numbers in front of him. That's like asking me "Next January you will be laid off- which bills are you not gonna pay?"- it depends on how much I save, which bills are most current and if any other mitigating factors arise between now and then. Maybe I'll get a new job. There is no way to know.
The question was necessary because I *think* Lehrer wanted one of the candidates to articulate that depth of complexity and that is why he repeated the question 3 times. Obama came very close- but no cigar. They were both deer in headlights - Obama being aware of the car but unable to move and McCain just stunned.
Sarah Palin was conspicuously absent from the commentary afterwards. She declined the invitation and the GOP sent Giuliani instead. So what's gonna happen if she's VP and get's invited to Russia or China for tough talks- are they gonna send Giuliani instead? If she can't even give a brief commentary on her running mates position how the hell is she going to discuss policy in the global arena?
3 comments:
The fact the McCain absolutely refused to speak to or even look at Obama had my back up through the whole thing.
The debate clearly showed the difference between a politician/campaigner and statesman/diplomat. I don't want a "Maverick" in control of this country's future..rather we need one who is deliberate, articulate, and centered.
Yay! More comments! I need to check for comments more often! LOL
Post a Comment