Both candidates lose in first debate

By Nicole Harris

After watching the first presidential debate on Sept. 26 and pouring over the transcript of the one-hour event, I came to three conclusions.

First, our economy is declining. Shocker. Second, Democrats and Republicans differ on their fundamental beliefs. Yet another surprise. But my third conclusion -- and perhaps the most significant to come out of the Friday night event -- is that there was no winner of the debate. In fact, both Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain lost in my book.

Perhaps it was naïve for me to think that a debate between the two presidential candidates would propose any clarity or even a glimmer of hope. Instead of gaining a deeper understanding of the candidates' positions on foreign policy, which was the intended topic of the majority of the debate, I turned off my TV infuriated by the lackluster public relations spins presented by both candidates and their inability to present why either of them would make the best president. I should have just gone to their campaign Web sites.

There were, however, some highlights of the debate. In less than five minutes, Obama impressively stated that we need energy independence, a better health care system, better education for our children and affordable college for everyone, also touching on the need to rebuild our infrastructure and increase our use of alternative energy. If you find someone in the United States who disagrees, let me know.

I also enjoyed both candidates' use of the term "fundamentally different." Maybe I'm out of touch here, but don't Democrats and Republicans typically differ fundamentally? It's been a while since I was in fourth grade, but I remember learning that we had two political parties because of the fact that they do differ.

Yet it was Obama who convinced me that perhaps the two presidential candidates aren't so different after all. Why else would the Democratic candidate agree with McCain nine times throughout the debate? Both candidates stated that we haven't used our military wisely in Iraq, that we need to invest in alternative energy methods, earmarking abuse is "bad" and -- my personal favorite -- that they both warned Congress about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and that the right people need to be held responsible. Team McCain/Obama anyone?

While some of their similarities in beliefs were a little concerning, both candidates did succeed in some subtle yet effective jabs.

Ironically, McCain either directly inferred or insinuated that Obama was too naïve for the presidency six times, while Obama attempted to tie McCain with President Bush six times as well. Their PR teams should high-five each other.

Aside from the same jabs we've been hearing over the past several months, I found the manner in which the candidates addressed partisan efforts very interesting. McCain directly referenced the two parties working together four times during the debate. While Obama referred to different Republicans he has worked with over the course of his career, including McCain advisor Henry Kissinger, he never directly referenced the two parties working together.

Because the topic of the debate was foreign policy, I thought that the war in Iraq would receive more specific attention from the candidates. Once again, they both inherently agreed that war was bad, the military's been wrongly handled and that Afghanistan and Pakistan are our greatest threats.

Yet I found both candidates' initial response to moderator Jim Lehrer's question of lessons learned from Iraq interesting. Obama responded first, citing another "fundamental difference" between himself and McCain, stating that the first question should have been whether or not we should have, "gone into the war in the first place."

McCain responded, "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."

I'm glad McCain responded the way that he did. At the same time, I'm embarrassed that the candidates spent little more than a brief moment acknowledging sentiments that the war was either entered on wrong accounts or handled inappropriately. The next time you see someone wearing a t-shirt reading "Iraq War = Best Choice Ever," I'd love to see it.

Redundancy aside, It's important that both candidates addressed the importance of relations with Pakistan. Yet, as the topic of Pakistan led to the issue of meeting with foreign leaders with preconditions, I once again questioned both parties' choice in candidate. Strip away all of the rhetoric -- McCain bashing Obama for his naivete and Obama addressing McCain as an old, stuffy Republican -- and they were pretty much saying the same thing. Is it ideal to meet with "evil" foreign powers? No. There's nothing ideal about Iran or North Korea. Might discussions be necessary with these countries for the betterment of our country? Of course. From their responses in the debate, would both candidates do what's best for the country? Most definitely.

I'm honestly relieved that we have two competent people willing to step up and attempt to be the next president of a country whose future is less than appealing at the moment, and I respect many of their views. But the American people need more than smooth rhetoric and the perpetuation of partisan stereotypes. We need our two presidential candidates to step it up and say it how it is.

Both Obama and McCain are excellent at feeding sound bites. But the day I will be 100 percent confident in my choice for president is the day a candidate stops telling me what I already know and starts telling me concrete ways that he will invoke change. Until then, I guess I'll just have to stay tuned.

Nicole Harris is the opinion editor of The Santa Clara.