The Presidential Campaign

We have two good men running for president. The first debate did not change my mind on that, or my probable choice, Senator Obama. The debate also did not change my mind on a political development, not new, but reemphasized, to my surprise and chagrin, since 9/11.

Shortly after 9/11 the blame game began: Bush, the gentleman's-C student, missed the signs; No Clinton did; No Bush; No the entire CIA. President Bush looked forward, and acted. It was a time for all Americans to come together and Bush led.

I can't balance my checkbook so I have no idea what this financial crisis we're in is about. But a lot of smart people from both parties have been throwing around the "D" word and I can see the parallels: a lack of regulatory reform leading to paper financial tigers that crumble with first wind and voila we're in a depression.

We have to look forward, not back, we have to come together, not blame, we have to act. Both candidates were more specific on what they would do on the issues, a welcome change in particular from Senator Obama, whose gauzy speech on the financial crisis was virtually a parody of the political art form.

But what most disappointed in the debate was the blame game.

Obama: Now, we also have to recognize that this is a final verdict on eight years of failed economic policies promoted by George Bush, supported by Senator McCain, a theory that basically says that we can shred regulations and consumer protections and give more and more to the most, and somehow prosperity will trickle down.

This was Senator McCain's response:

I've been not feeling too great about a lot of things lately. So have a lot of Americans who are facing challenges. But I'm feeling a little better tonight, and I'll tell you why.

Because as we're here tonight in this debate, we are seeing, for the first time in a long time, Republicans and Democrats together, sitting down, trying to work out a solution to this fiscal crisis that we're in.

Obama: The question, I think, that we have to ask ourselves is, how did we get into this situation in the first place?

...

On Iraq:

Obama: Well, this is an area where Senator McCain and I have a fundamental difference because I think the first question is whether we should have gone into the war in the first place.

McCain: The next president of the United States is not going to have to address the issue as to whether we went into Iraq or not. The next president of the United States is going to have to decide how we leave, when we leave, and what we leave behind. That's the decision of the next president of the United States.

On troop-funding:

Obama: And the strategic question that the president has to ask is not whether or not we are employing a particular approach in the country once we have made the decision to be there. The question is, was this wise?

.......

Obama: Now, keep in mind that we have four times the number of troops in Iraq, where nobody had anything to do with 9/11 before we went in, where, in fact, there was no al Qaeda before we went in...

The last answer is a blooper that Senator Obama didn't get called on, to my knowledge. Saddam Hussein didn't have anything to do with 9/11, nor did his government, but Al Qaeda was represented in Iraq at the time and Osama Bin Laden himself slipped through our hands and across the border into Afghanistan.

It is inevitable for the candidate of the party out of presidential power to point to the failings of the party in power, and to it's candidate, but one does so at the risk of being only a politician, not a leader. Senator Obama's reply to Senator McCain's call for bipartisanship in addressing the financial crisis, that "The question...that we have to ask ourselves is, how did we get into this situation in the first place?", is not the reply of a leader. His remark that the strategic question in Iraq is, "was it wise?" to be there in the first place... is not the strategic question in Iraq.