Blurry and Slurry

I feel irritated after listening to the first presidential debate.

I'm supposed to feel grateful that it even took place. Thanks for showing up, John McCain.

For the first 40 minutes, both candidates evaded specifics on Jim Lehrer's questions about the financial recovery plan.

"Yes or no to the recovery plan?" Lehrer asked twice. Then, "Are there fundamental differences between you?" Then, "What would you cut out?" Then finally, "Can you admit that the financial crisis will affect how you govern?"

Both kept telling what they would not cut out. Finally Obama said he would cut $15 billion in subsidies to private insurers.

McCain threw out words like "liberal spending" and "invasion of Normandy" instead of getting specific. They fenced with the word "earmarks."

I was irritated by McCain's repeated misrepresentation of Obama's words.

When Obama said he'd cut taxes for 95% of Americans, but not the top 5%, McCain kept telling us, "I would cut taxes" and suggesting Obama would raise them.

"For the wealthy, not for the middle class," Obama interjected.

Finally McCain clarified that he meant the US business tax, which he blamed for US businesses going abroad.

Then we were treated to an hour of each candidate trying to be more willing to wage foreign wars than the other.

Lehrer tossed out the bait: Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Russia, another 911?

McCain sneered at Obama repeatedly: "Obama doesn't understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy" ..."He's naive; he doesn't understand..."

Obama repeated that going into Iraq was wrong in the first place; we should have kept our focus on Al Quaeda and Afghanistan.

McCain kept raising the spectre of "If we suffer defeat in Iraq..." We'll have wider war, he predicted, quoting a mother, "Make sure my son's death was not in vain."

Wow, he's still in the years 1969, '71, '72, I thought.

"No soldier ever dies in vain carrying out" US policy, Obama declared.

Being "solely focused on Iraq... weakened our capacity to protect our country," he pointed out. Bin Laden is still at large and our spending $10 billion/mo on Iraq has weakened our economy "so we can't provide health care... fund veterans. We must start recognizing that the next president needs a broader strategic vision."

They both agreed that the US should stop torturing prisoners, but no one mentioned holding prisoners of war for years without filing charges or holding a trial.

McCain used frequent emotional appeals: "The veterans... I love them; they know I will take care of them." "When I came home from prison..." "She said, 'Senator McCain, please wear my son's bracelet.""

That bereaved mother was the only woman mentioned in the entire hour and forty minutes--oh, except for Miss Congeniality, whom McCain called on twice.

With Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin out of sight, women voters were also out of mind, as if our interests coincided exactly with the macho one-upsmanship being exhibited.

Only male faces appeared on the screen for that entire time. We didn't even have the relief of a woman showing up in an advertisement.

As a glimpse of our future in 2009 and the years thereafter, it was positively depressing.

If McCain wins, we get four years of military posturing and a VP who falls in line behind him.

If Obama wins, we maybe get a little diplomacy in between chasing down Osama bin Laden, but the Bush bash on the economy will probably prevent any real progress toward universal health care or improved child care or investment in education from preschool through college.

Sheesh--maybe they shouldn't have held this debate after all. I feel verbally waterboarded.

At least the differences between the candidates were visible, along with their huge areas of agreement.

If US voters put McCain in office, we deserve what we get.

I sure hope I don't have four more years of Republican mistakes to live through.