I’m re-watching last Friday’s first Presidential debate. Rather than bore you with general remarks or parroted insights, I’ll start with something original: Who tied their neckties? Lehrer’s isn’t bad, but both Obama and McCain were sporting the asymmetrical four-in-hand knot. There’s nothing wrong with this knot, but both McCain and Obama’s ties were off-center. Each had a decent dimple, but then there’s the issue of color. McCain chose a pink, maroon, and white striped tie, and Obama’s mauve number resembled early-90’s church pew upholstery. What were they thinking? Neckties, like vice presidents, need to be vetted thoroughly.

On virtually every question about the budget, McCain emphasized dramatic action, such as ending all earmarks and freezing all spending except for entitlements and veteran care, while Obama made more nuanced and specific proposals. Overall (and I’m admittedly biased), Obama kicked on the budgetary questions - McCain came off as overly simplistic, and besides, earmarks are a tiny portion of federal spending (graph). In 1990, you might have been able to convince me that Republicans are better at balancing the budget (especially since I was a kid then), but not today. Obama said clearly that he’d pay for everything he’s proposed, rather than run up the national debt.

On Iraq, McCain talked about things that are going well, including the surge and David Petraeus’ leadership. “The next President is not going to have the issue as to whether we went into Iraq or not. The next President is going to have to decide how we leave, when we leave, and what we leave behind.” This was a smart way to counteract Obama’s drone-like repetition of his “We never should have gone in” argument. Obama shot back by saying McCain likes to pretend the war started in 2007, and turned the question into one about judgment about how to use the military in general. He also blasted through McCain’s accusation that he voted against funding for troops, which was a dirty accusation since both Obama and McCain have voted against for specific funding bills for the Iraq war, as Obama went on to explain.

Obama was forceful and lucid on his point that talking to enemy leaders is a good idea, and that not talking to them isn’t a punishment. McCain repeated his argument against such talks, which was somewhat bewildering since Obama had just dismantled this argument. Obama responded by distinguishing between preconditions and preparations, and by citing Henry Kissinger’s thoughts on meetings “without preconditions” with enemy leaders (see FactCheck on this point). By the way, Kissinger and four other Secretaries of State appeared recently on a CNN panel. I heard it on NPR, and it was amazing. I felt smarter just for listening to the radio.

Early on, McCain made several comments that dated him, including a reference to Eisenhower, a mention of the Great Society, and a quip that he’s “Old enough to remember” something or other. There’s nothing wrong with making historical references - we should be worried about a Presidential candidate who doesn’t know our country’s history. But McCain needs to be careful about comments that assume his hearers will understand older references. Worst of all, he acted as if he couldn’t hear Obama when Leher asked Obama to speak directly to McCain. It was a harmless joke, but it reminded the audience yet again that Sarah Palin would be only a heartbeat away from the Presidency if McCain were elected.

Speaking of Palin, she made big news this week too. Three videos you have to watch:
1. Her interview with Charlie Gibson of ABC
2. Her interview with Katie Couric of CBS
3. The second Tina Fey skit from SNL that parodies Palin

After you watch these videos, you’ll understand why CNN’s Jack Cafferty offered this opinion of Palin.

What did you think of the debates and Palin’s interviews?