Well, of course I was disappointed that none of the questions I suggested yesterday came up. But since access to reproductive health care, the prevalence of sexual violence in the military, paid family leave and maternal mortality rates are mere “women’s issues,” I can’t say I’m surprised. What I took away from last night’s debate:
1. John McCain, whatever you think of his politics, is the first Republican in many years (except, perhaps, H.W. Bush) who doesn’t sound like a blithering, lowest-common-denominator, Mickey-Mouse idiot when asked a question about policy. (Unlike his running mate, he also pronounces “nuclear” correctly). That’s one reason these debates have felt more evenly matched than Kerry/Bush, Gore/Bush, Clinton/Dole, etc.
2. On the other hand, McCain certainly did dodder on occasion, His tics–from the constant repetition of his irritating “my friends” mantra, to his weird reference to the CEO of eBay in response to a question about the Treasury Secretary, to his off-putting non sequiturs about hair transplants–highlighted the difference in age between the candidates. Yes, you may have been on a Navy ship with a nuclear plant on board, Senator–but do we really need to be looking for energy solutions in the technology of 40 years ago?
3. Obama’s responses to some class questions struck me as a little out of touch. For example, describing the effect the economic crisis has had on Americans, he told a voter, “Maybe you don’t go out to dinner as much; maybe you put off buying a new car.” I don’t think most middle Americans are going out to dinner much now, if at all; and people who are struggling in this economy certainly have bigger problems than merely having to wait a few months to drop a $20,000 on a new car. On the other hand, his response to the question about what he would cut–$400 billion in tax breaks for corporations–was brilliant: A specific answer that cut directly at the heart of Republican policy and made a mockery of McCain talking points like “earmarks” or “inefficiencies.”
4. One moment that made my head explode: When McCain dodged the question about how he would order three priorities–energy, health care, and education–by responding, “We can attack energy and health care at the same time.” Coming from a guy who couldn’t “fix the financial crisis” and run his campaign at the same time, that’s pretty unbelievable.
5. I’m getting pretty damn sick of hearing about “clean coal” and hybrid cars as “solutions” to climate change. It was nice to hear Obama at least mention efficiency and conservation–“each and every one of us can start thinking about how can we save energy in our homes”–but it’s disappointing to see even the Democratic candidate still portraying the problem of climate change as primarily a problem of individual choice and better technology–as if “American ingenuity” could solve the problem in the absence of radically different government policy. Fundamentally, it ignores the fact that climate change is a global emergency that requires systemic solutions, not a nice little incentive to put on a sweater. More along those lines here.
6. Obama handled McCain’s accusation that he would “raise taxes” with aplomb. One of Obama’s rhetorical weaknesses is that he can be verbose; but his answer last night–“If you make $200,000 or less, your taxes will go down“–nailed it in a single sentence. McCain’s response–an uncomfortable, feeble, awkward laugh, followed by a dodgy statement about how “our best days are ahead of us”–showed exactly how effective Obama’s statement was.
7. However, Obama did miss an opportunity on an audience question about whether health care should be considered “a commodity.” What he should have said: “No, it should be considered a right.” (And not just for kids!) And his statement about his mother–“for my mother to die of cancer at 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital wondering worrying over whether this was a preexisting condition”–came across as oddly canned and stiff, as if he’d been waiting for a way to work it into his speaking points. Finally, he failed to fully take on McCain’s ridiculous claim that his proposal to give a $5,000 tax credit and promote “competition among states” will benefit anyone–noting only that “all the banks go to Delaware,” where regulation is minimal. That’s a good point, but he should have added, “And $5,000 isn’t enough to pay for a week’s hospital stay. We’re talking basic health care for ordinary Americans, not vanity surgeries for people in the top one percent.”
8. Good on Obama for sticking by his initial position on Iraq. Backpedaling now would look like weakness–his concise response (“Getting into Iraq was the wrong judgment”) was exactly what he needed to say.
9. Unfortunately, he failed to adequately explain his overall policy on intervention during a follow-up, talking vaguely of Rwanda and the need to intervene in other countries “when we can do good.” (In a subsequent question about Russia, Obama was similarly vague, asserting that “we have to anticipate things around the corners.”) Military leaders must make decisions with incomplete information and without the benefit of hindsight, and Obama’s failure to acknowledge that made him look a little ill-informed .
10. Overall, I think Obama won. But I don’t think it was as overwhelming a sweep as some of my colleagues (and most liberal pundits) seem to believe. McCain held his own, and Obama–never the strongest debater to begin with–flailed a bit in the town-hall format and lost his stamina in the final 30 minutes or so of the debate.
Are there any optimists out there who believe the US and the world will actually deal with rising CO2 omissions?
Because most people I know believe that no matter who we elect, we’re going to get fairly minor tinkering and that the US and the world will simply continue down the same path and deal with the disastrous consequences as they come, much like we did with the real estate bubble.
Elenchos –
The problem is that people make decisions based on emotion rather than facts. Yes, I think 4,000 people dying from Chernobyl is unfortunate, but not a reason to destroy our planet. Do you not believe the number, it’s not as if the WHO is a pro-nuclear group.
Something like 2.5 million people die each year globally from air-pollution related disease, so yes, relative to that 4,000 people is a drop. But for some reason people believe that 4,000 deaths (over decades) from an extraordinary event are far worse than 2.5 million deaths/year from ordinary event.
Sure, we can scrub coal-burning a bit cleaner, but it’s not really clean unless you’re talking about CO2 sequestration, and it’s becoming more and more clear that the costs of any CO2 sequestration would make coal so expensive that it wouldn’t be burned.
So what we’ll do is pretend that we’re going to make coal a lot cleaner, fund some research projects, and continue to destroy our planet by doing the same, building a few solar and wind projects here and there. But at least we won’t have to worry about that evil nuclear waste!
No nuclear advocate is even imagining in their wildest dreams building enough nuclear plants to save the lives of the 2.5 million a year who die from coal related disease. They will still die, plus however many die from all the extra nuclear accidents. Plus god knows what happens in 500 or 1000 years to all the nuclear waste.
So the idea that a handful, at best, of nuclear plants will address coal pollution in any way is nonsense. As if nuclear plants will prevent China from burning all their coal. Having better technology will help China pollute less, however.
@52,
There may be only 4,000 estimated deaths from direct exposure, but Chernobyl’s fallout spread over Eastern and Western Europe. It’s entirely possible that over a million people were affected by it.
And, quite frankly, given the choice between breathing in regular air pollution or particles from a nuclear accident, I’ll choose the former.
Elenchos –
Right, because people have been dying left and right in France from their 30 years of nuclear plants.
The fact is, the US *already* generates 20% of our electricity from nuclear, and where are all the dead bodies from our 40 years of nuclear power?
Anyway, if nuclear is so dangerous do you think we should shut down the existing plants we have in the US and Europe and move them to “safer” coal and natural gas?
The only people who believe in clean coal are coal executives and politicians (like Biden and Obama and McCain) that are trying to win votes in coal-mining areas.
Keshmeshi –
The 4,000 is the best estimate of long-term effects including cancer caused decades later by the fallout. People think it’s higher because they remember the fear and they haven’t researched it. If you ask people in 20 years how many died in 9/11 I’m willing to bet the numbers will be 10 or 20x the reality.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index.html
You act as if the only issue was pollution. How about global warming? Or would you rather continue down the path of destroying the planet rather than taking a risk on some scary technology? Or if not what’s your solution?
It’s good to start to recognize the political power of the coal mining states. Every state gets two Senators, and at least one Representative. It only takes one Senator to filibuster, and you need 270 electoral votes to become President. That’s reality.
Which is to say we are no more going to stop mining coal than stop growing corn.
One systems failure in a nuclear plant comparable to the shuttle disasters or the failures of 9/11, and we will shut down those nuclear plants. Odds are it will happen in 10 or 20 years. Might as well start shutting them all down now in an orderly fashion.
Elenchos –
If “odds are” that it will happen in 10 or 20 years how has France gotten away with running so many plants over 30 years without any catastrophic failures?
The issue isn’t whether or not we burn coal, it’s whether we continue to build more and more coal plants. The fact is that the prototype “clean coal” plant, Futuregen, was just stopped a few months ago when they realized the cost had nearly doubled to $2 billion before they even started building it. Back to the drawing board.
By the way, what’s the environmental consequence of CO2 sequestration if it fails? Because no one knows if that CO2 is going to stay underground or under the oceans long-term. We could end up with a Lake Nyos of our own.
“Clean coal” is simply a game that we’re playing to avoid admitting that we will continue to burn coal in an extremely dirty fashion for decades to come.
The best read in months – WOW.
Think fission.
Think waste into the sun, might need a worm hole.
World wide engineering skills and processing have NEVER been better. If the Western World including Russia and China turn to the best tech and engineering people to get into the new ear of nukes – well, I believe some fantastic advances would show in short order.(call Bectel)
The French are on the leading edge of nukes, that is absolute. America blinked and the Euro nuke scientists are still amused.
Japan has many nukes as well.
In sum, WWPSS was a good idea, bad timing. Let’s recreate it. Hanford has the land and the best power grid in the world is right there… say Bonneville Power, BPA
Palin needs some credit if indeed the 20 billion natural gas pipeline is built …. 30 fucking years of blathering talk. The political system is a form of insanity we all tolerate far too much.
Obama has giant gaps – many of his answers were not studied and accurate … but he is bright and I trust him over Mc Cain.
Some version of the Mc Cain direct project dealing with now inflated debt and all that might keep hundreds of thousands of middle class families their homes. If the debt exceeds the value by 200,000. common sense says walk away, not good right now. It is the new crises coming from the employed and much more savy middle class who view homes as dwelling and investments toward old age.
Should have started something like that a year ago.
Why did McCain take notes? Tom Brokaw is repeating the question for him so that he can write it down before he answers it. wtf?
We’re middle class and we go out to dinner at least twice a week. Not always someplace fancy, but we go out. I don’t think the economy problem is affecting my every day life yet. Not to say it won’t in the future…