# September 26 - The First Obama-McCain Debate **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 26, 2008, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/september-26-the-first-obama-mccain-debate/465357 "2008-09-26T16:49:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 32
**Author:** ![AuntiePam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@AuntiePam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AuntiePam)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2008, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/september-26-the-first-obama-mccain-debate/465357/621 "2008-09-27T19:03:58Z")
Wasn’t that whole exchange in the debate a niggle about the difference between preconditions and preparation? I don’t see that Obama’s changed his position – sounds to me like he simply clarified it. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2008, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/september-26-the-first-obama-mccain-debate/465357/622 "2008-09-27T19:04:02Z")
McCain explained more of [his economic policy proposals](http://www.theonion.com/content/video/mccain_s_economic_plan_for_nation) today. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2008, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/september-26-the-first-obama-mccain-debate/465357/623 "2008-09-27T19:07:20Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > You seem to miss that I do take the time line into account, I was not making my point on Obama changing his position, in fact I took that into account when I still say that your line of attack is pathetic. What the fuck are you talking about? Show me where I took that line of “attack”? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2008, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/september-26-the-first-obama-mccain-debate/465357/624 "2008-09-27T19:13:45Z")
> [@AuntiePam](#): > > Wasn’t that whole exchange in the debate a niggle about the difference between preconditions and preparation? I don’t see that Obama’s changed his position – sounds to me like he simply clarified it. That is precisely what I’m trying to say, but **magellan01** thinks his quotes demonstrate… something, as I saw before even if Obama was before referring only to the president then his reasons for dealing with bad leaders still make more sense than the sorry reasons for not negotiating that the republicans continue to mention. The reasons become really pathetic when I see that in practice Republicans do not even follow their lines of reasoning very well. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2008, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/september-26-the-first-obama-mccain-debate/465357/625 "2008-09-27T19:19:11Z")
> [@Jolly\_Roger](#): > > Well, the military almost universally goes republican for some strange reason. Its probably perhaps that the republicans do spend more on the armed forces than the dems as far as I know. (correct me if I’m wrong in that, I have no cites on it) If Obama wins one thing he may want to do is work on that perception and make the dems look more military friendly. > > Overall, I think Obama did better in the debate because he laid his ideas and what he wants to do. I didn’t hear anything like that from JM. [https://www.democrats.org/a/2006/03/president\_bush\_8.php](https://www.democrats.org/a/2006/03/president_bush_8.php) Bush has consistently cut military benefits. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2008, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/september-26-the-first-obama-mccain-debate/465357/626 "2008-09-27T19:20:12Z")
> [@AuntiePam](#): > > Wasn’t that whole exchange in the debate a niggle about the difference between preconditions and preparation? I don’t see that Obama’s changed his position – sounds to me like he simply clarified it. I was thinking the same thing. “Without preconditions” simply means that he’s not requiring the other leader to give ground in negotiations _before_ they meet, as a precondition for meeting. That’s got nothing to do with whether there’s advance _preparations_ for a meeting between heads of state, which I assume would be the norm, preconditions or no. ---
**Author:** ![Oy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bc8723/32.png) [@Oy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oy)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2008, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/september-26-the-first-obama-mccain-debate/465357/627 "2008-09-27T19:31:44Z")
I don’t think Obama ever meant himself in person when he was talking about talking to other nations; he was talking about about talking, if you know what I mean. WRT the debates, both candidates did better than I’d expected. McCain was more on point than I’d expected, less folksy and anecdotal, so I was pleased with him in that respect. On the down side, he played fast and loose with a few facts, and as has been noted, refused to grant Obama the respect of being a worthy opponent. Would that be the way he interacted with foriegn leaders? McCain tends to demonize the enemy in his own mind. That can be very dangerous. Obama was less abstract, less um-ing and uh-ing than I’d expected, so I was pleased with him in that respect. But I was disappointed that he let several opportunities slip by, such as McCain’s claim to have opposed the White House on several things, when McCain reversed his opinion on those very issues (including torture) in order to win the Republican nomination. He didn’t ask McCain to define terms for victory in Iraq, which both the New York Times and I would be interested in hearing. He didn’t mention that Iraq has basically said “Hit the road, Jack” or that very few political goals of the Surge have been met. To me, it came across as McCain edging out Obama slightly, but only slightly. But the poll of independents the MSNBC cited last night came up with the opposite, presumably because Obama clearly established his understanding of foreign affairs, about which I had had no prior doubt. For me, this was more a matter of McCain establishing his \*bona fides \*than Obama establishing his own, and McCain did that. I still believe that McCain’s temperment and policies would make him a bad president, but at least he is not as painfully ignorant as the current president was and largely remains, and as his own VP pick is. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2008, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/september-26-the-first-obama-mccain-debate/465357/628 "2008-09-27T19:35:23Z")
> [@AuntiePam](#): > > Wasn’t that whole exchange in the debate a niggle about the difference between preconditions and preparation? I don’t see that Obama’s changed his position – sounds to me like he simply clarified it. Check post 617. Obama himself makes a distinction between preconditions and preparations. and contrary to the false accusation hurled my way, I’ve not attacked him on this. Read my posts on in this thread. I was actually giving him the benefit of the doubt, that maybe he misspoke, given the confusion between the two words. But the quote I found and cited on #617 actually changes my opinion. He admits that he would meet without preconditions. So if he has changed his mind, he should state so. If not, it is fair to hold him to that position, as Hillary did. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2008, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/september-26-the-first-obama-mccain-debate/465357/629 "2008-09-27T19:37:12Z")
> [@Oy](#): > > I don’t think Obama ever meant himself in person when he was talking about talking to other nations; he was talking about about talking, if you know what I mean. Then he needs to learn how to answer a direct question. Check the cite I provided concerning the YouTube video above. ---
**Author:** ![Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fish)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2008, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/september-26-the-first-obama-mccain-debate/465357/630 "2008-09-27T19:45:05Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Oh, please. You want to ignore everything except the last two years? Now, I can see why you might want to, but that’s not how it works. McCain has a great record. Records matter more than words. Wanting to ignore that is pathetic. What else do you call it when a candidate is For something, then Against it, but then For it again? If I try to look at McCain’s record over the past 20 years I have _no fucking idea_ what his current positions are. I can only assume that his most recent positions are the most current, but with McCain, who the hell knows? What _is_ his position on torture these days? What’s his position on financial deregulation? His opinions seem to change a lot with time (and with the recent poll numbers). Whatever positions McCain held 20 years ago, they were enough to get him elected _20 years ago._ But if I’m gonna vote for anybody, I want to know what they support _NOW_, now what they used to think in that other election. Do you argue that I should reward him in the _current_ election for political views he no longer holds? ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2008, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/september-26-the-first-obama-mccain-debate/465357/631 "2008-09-27T19:58:39Z")
By the way, when McCain stumbled a bit on Ahmadinejad, did anyone else think Raxacoricofallapatorius? ---
**Author:** ![Oy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bc8723/32.png) [@Oy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oy)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2008, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/september-26-the-first-obama-mccain-debate/465357/632 "2008-09-27T20:08:12Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Then he needs to learn how to answer a direct question. Check the cite I provided concerning the YouTube video above. I agree that Obama is not being 100% clear on this. I just watched your YouTube link, and while it seems clear to me that he is saying “_we_ will talk to whoever” referring to the US as a whole, I can easily see how you can get the impression that he is saying that he as the President would personally meet with the personal leaders Castro and Chavez, etc. I’m guessing that that idea is so far from his mind that it has never occurred to him that people have interpretted him that way. ETA: I also think he just doesn’t consider a meeting between the actual heads of state that important; it’s just a photo op. The real work gets done in the diplomatic sessions. ETAA: What the heck is Raxacoricofallapatorius? ---
**Author:** ![Camus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ba8739/32.png) [@Camus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Camus)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2008, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/september-26-the-first-obama-mccain-debate/465357/633 "2008-09-27T20:16:31Z")
> [@Fish](#): > > What else do you call it when a candidate is For something, then Against it, but then For it again? What are you talking about? McCain has been fairly consistent since [2006](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlJ3-KPDkFo). ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2008, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/september-26-the-first-obama-mccain-debate/465357/634 "2008-09-27T20:22:34Z")
At least we are getting to the truly crucial issue here: did Obama change his position on meeting foreign leaders without preconditions? Its hard to imagine a more significant issue, a more existential crisis in judgement. We can bat aside quibbles about McCain changing his position on war, peace, taxes, torture, and slobberng the scaly knob of the Trog Right. These are minor concerns, not worthy of our attention in comparison to this issue of staggering importance: Did Obama shift his position on preconditions for meeting with hostile foreign leaders? Frankly, if he fails on this issue, I will be compelled to vote for the candidate who is resolutely and unflinchingly wrong about pretty much everything. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2008, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/september-26-the-first-obama-mccain-debate/465357/635 "2008-09-27T20:23:36Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > But the quote I found and cited on #617 actually changes my opinion. He admits that he would meet without preconditions. So if he has changed his mind, he should state so. If not, it is fair to hold him to that position, as Hillary did. I got that part. The part I’m missing is when he said he _would_ require preconditions. By your cite @617, he said “without preconditions, but with preparation” when debating Hillary in February, which was my understanding of what he’d said then. And per the [transcript](http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/debate-transcri.html), he seemed to be saying the same thing last night: > [@](#): > > [Obama:] Now, understand what this means “without preconditions.” It doesn’t mean that you invite them over for tea one day. What it means is that we don’t do what we’ve been doing, which is to say, “Until you agree to do exactly what we say, we won’t have direct contacts with you.” > > There’s a difference between preconditions and preparation. Of course we’ve got to do preparations, starting with low-level diplomatic talks, and it may not work, because Iran is a rogue regime. > > \ > > OBAMA: Look, I mean, Senator McCain keeps on using this example that suddenly the president would just meet with somebody without doing any preparation, without having low-level talks. Nobody’s been talking about that, and Senator McCain knows it. This is a mischaracterization of my position. > > When we talk about preconditions – and Henry Kissinger did say we should have contacts without preconditions – the idea is that we do not expect to solve every problem before we initiate talks. So when did he change from his old stance, that he was going to meet foreign leaders without preconditions but with advance preparations, to his new one that he was going to meet foreign leaders without preconditions but with advance preparations? Was there a time in between when he took a different position? I’m seriously missing something here. ---
**Author:** ![HoboStew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f17d59/32.png) [@HoboStew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoboStew)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2008, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/september-26-the-first-obama-mccain-debate/465357/636 "2008-09-27T20:26:55Z")
> [@Peanut\_Gallery](#): > > Jim Lehrer won. That was my feeling as well. I really liked his moderating style, and I kept hoping the candidates would listen to him and engage each other, rather than taking turns giving speeches. Excellent job by Lehrer. ---
**Author:** ![AuntiePam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@AuntiePam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AuntiePam)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2008, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/september-26-the-first-obama-mccain-debate/465357/637 "2008-09-27T20:28:32Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > But the quote I found and cited on #617 actually changes my opinion. He admits that he would meet without preconditions. So if he has changed his mind, he should state so. If not, it is fair to hold him to that position, as Hillary did. I saw that, and it doesn’t help me understand. I don’t think that quote clarifies things very well. Clinton talks about requiring change in Cuba before agreeing to a sitdown. Obama’s response is “Senator Clinton is right” but he finishes with “there has to be **preparation**.” “Senator Clinton is right” could mean that Obama agrees on preconditions, but continuing with “there has to be preparation” puts another (reasonable) interpretation on what he actually meant. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2008, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/september-26-the-first-obama-mccain-debate/465357/638 "2008-09-27T20:29:40Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Oh, please. You want to ignore everything except the last two years? Now, I can see why you might want to, but that’s not how it works. McCain has a great record. Records matter more than words. Larry Bird was a hell of a basketball player, but I wouldn’t want him starting for my team in the NBA Finals this season. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2008, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/september-26-the-first-obama-mccain-debate/465357/639 "2008-09-27T20:30:26Z")
Huh. **RTFirefly** just provided the additional information that makes me think maybe Obama hasn’t changed his position. It seems plausible that Obama is saying, “We should be willing to have low-level meetings with any nation’s leader, with the intent of setting the stage for high-level meetings.” If that’s what he’s saying, that seems a defensible position, and consistent with both statements. Does anyone disagree? Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Jolly\_Roger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/91b2a8/32.png) [@Jolly\_Roger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jolly_Roger)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2008, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/september-26-the-first-obama-mccain-debate/465357/640 "2008-09-27T20:35:05Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > [https://www.democrats.org/a/2006/03/president\_bush\_8.php](https://www.democrats.org/a/2006/03/president_bush_8.php) > > Bush has consistently cut military benefits. I have not yet looked at our cites, but I am not surprised at what you say. Bush is a moron. He tasks the miltitary to do an enormous job and cuts their beneits. Makes sense to me without checking becuase I seriously do not have any faith in Bush or the pubbies. They’re way too willing to let the little guy fall while they prosper. The entire Walter Reed fiasco was a shame on our nation. Walter Reed Army Hospital should be setting a high standard for our wounded. Our soldiers deserve the best…and I’ll say it again…the best care possible when they come back even in peacetime. Wounded from war? Theres no question in my mind. _ **They deserve the best medical care we can give.** _ So no I’m not shocked if Bush and his cronies don’t provide it. After all lining the pockets of his friends seems to be more important than taking care of the men and women that serve the country…with the thought that the nation will take care of them if they get hurt. Its disgusting. I’m afraid to read your link now. I will. I’m sorry for the tirade I just went on. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/september-26-the-first-obama-mccain-debate/465357.md?page=31) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/september-26-the-first-obama-mccain-debate/465357.md?page=33)