Substance, finally... mostly

With the exception of a few distractions, substance crept its way into last night's debate. On a wide range of domestic issues ranging from health care to taxes to the economy to education the debate actually served its purpose - provide a clear contrast between the two candidates. Sure, Ayers was thrown in there and, yes, there was probably too much time devoted to the tone of the ads running on TV and the radio. While these are entertaining they really don't tell us anything about where the next president is planning on spending our time, energy, resources. Here are a few legitimate debate moments:

                                          Health Care

Now McCain does have a point to make here on Health Care but he just didn't make it well. What he should have asked is, "Why do you think it is a good idea to force people to buy health insurance for their children? Shouldn't that be up to the parent's discretion?" That would be a legitimate question. The reason this was a legitimate debate moment despite McCain not asking this question is because he was trying to get at a fundamental difference in philosophies between the two candidates on Health Care. He was trying to establish that there is an option in this election. Either you believe in everyone pitching in to reduce overall health care costs or you believe in your personal freedom to choose what you want to do with you own health care. McCain just posed the question poorly.

                                            Taxes

Again, fundamental differences in philosophy. Either you believe in Reagan's trickle-down economics or you believe that middle class America is the backbone of the economy. Regardless of whether Obama's plan will actually work to get this economy going again, I think Obama is going to win this debate because trickle-down economics is exactly was hasn't been working the last eight years during the Bush administration. The tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy was supposed to create millions of new jobs for middle class Americans. Of course, we know that that hasn't been the case.

             Roe v Wade, Supreme Court Justices

McCain had a very respectable answer here (whether of or not you agree with a litmus test approach) until the end when he said, "I would consider anyone in their qualifications. I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. Wade that would be part of those qualifications. But I certainly would not impose any litmus test." I could be interpreting this incorrectly, but it sounds to me like he is saying that supporting Roe v Wade is evidence that you are not qualified. If that is what he is saying than there is a litmus test for Mccain. I am not arguing wether or not there should be a litmus test but you can't have it both ways.

Other thoughts:
There were also great exchanges on trade and climate change. Overall, I think the voters who watched the debate are the ones who really won. Bob Schieffer was by far the most effective moderator. For the full transcript go here.

(Completely shallow and substance-free thought: Do John and Cindy McCain look like a scary Halloween couple in the picture above?)