While every other blogger and pundit on earth is trying to tell you who "won" the debate last night, I'm going to share with you the 100% honest results from last night's debate.
Both candidates did about the same. They avoided the politically hard topics as best as they could and instead continued to stake out their politically easy topics. Jim Lehrer gave up trying to get them to say anything new or real after the first 20 minutes or so.
When I say politically hard vs. politically easy, here are some examples of each:
Politically easy: Abortion, Iraq War, earmarks/"government waste", education, defense budget, Russia/Georgia, "sitting down" with terrorists, oil drilling
Politically hard: Illegal immigration, the bailout
And both candidates avoided the politically hard topic (the bailout) Lehrer threw at them within milliseconds. Lehrer tried to drill into them on it but they avoided it again and again and again for 9 minutes.
Politically easy topics may not seem easy at first -- yes, they're hard actual problems to solve. But they're politically easy because you stake out one end of the spectrum or the other and one-issue idiots will vote for you.
Last night's debate didn't include abortion but it's a great example of political ease. One-issue-idiot-pro-lifers will vote for McCain and one-issue-idiot-pro-choicers will vote for Obama. We knew that before the debate. We could have predicted 20 years ago which way one-issue-idiot-abortioners were going to vote in this election, even though Roe v. Wade was decided 35 years ago and no major changes have come about in abortion rights with pro-lifers dominating the White House for most of that 35 year span.
You do this as a politician because you keep the votes you already had. This is why every politically hard topic must be pushed into a politically easy one.
So back to the politically hard topic that both Obama and McCain deftly punted on: the Bailout. The vast majority of the population is against the bailout. 70% are against this bailout plan. Congress has been flooded with angry calls, emails and faxes all week long. Every Bailout article on the Wall Street Journal is taken over by venom from voters against it.
And neither of these guys said a word about it in either direction -- really for it, or really against it. Just that "we have to do something" and having "faith that an agreement will be reached". Then they went back into the politically easy topics that they already had staked out positions on. Obama talked about alternative energy when asked about the bailout. Alternative energy!
Aren't the two gentlemen on stage supposed to be Senators who represent the will of the people? If so, this was an easy target to gain points on. Be against this crappy plan. Say that the Federal Reserve Act should be repealed. Do something major.
But no. That would have alienated the people who give these clowns all of their money in the first place. The George Soroses of the world. And that's what makes these politically hard for them. Their donors are the 20% who are on the extreme "for" of illegal immigration, the bailout, and other politically hard topics.
Where was the change platform last night? Aren't both of these candidates now supposed to be the candidates of change? I didn't hear about much change last night... and the bailout is a topic that would have been easy to declare how to make some major changes. I honestly can't recall one serious change issue last night from Obama except that he wants to get out of Iraq earlier than McCain. That's it.
So anyway, that's the 100% honest debate results -- neither won. They did about the same. They properly avoided hard topics and staked out their extreme positions on the easy ones. Congratulations guys. If I want the exact same type of politician we've always had in the Federal Government, you're both succeeding at convincing me that you're suited for the job.