Recycled rhetoric

— Editor's note: Tanya Amador-Daigle is reporting for Florida Weekly on the presidential election. She has a unique perspective on the primaries and the process for choosing a candidate, having traveled the country reporting on primaries and caucuses for the Purple States project. To learn more about Purple States go, to www.purplestates.tv.

 

Friday night, as I sat with my fellow Purple Staters watching the first presidential debate in North Carolina, I found my mind wandering. The reason for my distraction was not due to the fact that I was exhausted; it was because Senators John McCain and Barack Obama didn't say anything new. At 10:30 p.m., when the debate ended, I looked at Liz and Alex, two of my fellow citizen journalists, and said, "Well there's an hour of my life I'll never get back." The three of us agreed that neither candidate hit it out of the park. Nor did either commit any major gaffes. As Alex put it, "I felt like I was listening to Charlie Brown's teacher: wah wah wah." It's a good thing I didn't have to pay to watch the debate or I would have asked for a refund.

I've seen the candidates recycle their speeches incessantly since last year, and with all of the horror surrounding the government's financial rescue plan, I suppose I had been expecting more out of the debate. Instead, both candidates claimed they had seen the disaster coming and had warned Congress. However, neither really answered moderator Jim Lehrer's question when he asked about the broader effects of the bailout on their individual budget policies, even though he asked the question twice. Both agreed, that reform on Wall Street was needed… gee, ya think? I'm just not sure how one can talk about the tremendous cost of the bailout without doing the math that connects it to their policies on tax cuts and spending.

The Henry Kissinger question made for a minor scuffle in which McCain stated that Kissinger, his friend of 35 years, would not recommend that the president of the U.S. sit down with the leader of a rogue nation. Obama, on the other hand, seemed to backpedal on previous statements that he WOULD sit down with our enemies, without pre-conditions. He did this by spinning his story to mean that he would hold talks, but at a lower level, like a secretary of state, something Kissinger DOES support.

Furthermore, with regards to foreign policy, I'm wondering if I'm alone in noticing the vagueness of how each candidate would deal with Iran and other similar nations. I think the assumption is that McCain would use military action more readily, while Obama would hesitate, believing that negotiations would be more effective. However, both men continually refuse to take anything "off the table," and Friday night's debate certainly didn't offer me any more insight into the issue. It's plain to me that neither candidate wants to alienate any voters on such an important issue.

As far as demeanor, I thought Obama seemed at ease, even when he struggled for words. McCain appeared to me at times like he was out of patience for his opponent and was trying to keep his temper in check. Obama frequently agreed with McCain, something I noticed he did on many occasions during the primaries with Sen. Clinton. My observation is that he's a pleaser who doesn't like conflict. Either that, or their policies just aren't that far apart. Interestingly, Lehrer asked both men to engage each other directly when answering the questions, something neither candidate took him up on. Maybe Obama was afraid McCain's head would come off if he pushed his buttons.

Perhaps the next two debates will contain more substance and new material. In the meantime, I'm looking forward to the vice presidential debate. Now THAT promises to deliver, IF they can avoid the same old clichés, analogies and catchphrases.