Debate

I will not comment on the debate for two reasons:

1.  I do not consider debates significant.  Joe Biden, bor example, is making a major gaffe a day, when he is not even under questioning.  Say he made it through a debate without a gaffe.  Does that cancel all of the gaffes he is making?  See tomorrow's entry or entries on Biden's gaffes, including some new ones. 

If McCani made an inadvertent gaffe, does it change the fact that he is qualified to be Commander-in-Chief and Obama isn't?  Of ocurse not.  Now indicatioiins are McCain probably "won" the debate, but it matters not.  We are not electing a debater, or someone that can handle what amounts to a joint news conference better than the other, on an isolated occasion (result might be different if you did it over again, like the result of an NFL football game might be different if the game were replayed.  McCain's idea of extensive joint town =hall "debates" would have been more valuable, but even that may have been misleading.  Yes, speeches are even more useless.  As I have said rfepeatedly, and is obvious (depite media fainting spells and weakness in the knees), the fact that Obama reads a teleprompter really well is irrelevant to whether he should be President.  If speeches are irrelevant and debates are irrelevant, what do you use to vote?  Good question.  I think it clearly comes down to a judgment on which man can better lead the country, based on experience and record, and not words, plus almost a gut feeling as to which candidate will lead the nation in the right direction in the future (although past actions tell you a lot on that).  I give the edge to McCain on an objective level, but,

2.  I am back to my origingal evaluation that I do not care who wins this election, unless something again dramatically changes.  Palin is no longer enough for me.  I am back to not being able to live with what McCain will do to conservatives, and the attempt to advance the conservative philosophy in our politics.  The debate had nothing to do with this return to "neutrality" (although I could never vote for Obama).  The overall way McCain is approaching domestic policy, other than earmark type spending, is grating on me. He is not a conservative (well, I knew that but was willing to let the choice of Palin sway me, and that is no longer enough, through no fault of Palin).   Since I am back to not caring who wins the election, I don't really care who "won" the debate.  Since I don't think the debate is relevant as to whom a person should give his or her vote, the only reason to pay attention is a rooting interest in who "wins" the deabate, on the theory that some people will actually vote (wrongly) on that basis.

There you have it.  No substantive analysis of the debate, and you will get none from me.  I might, as usual, comment on "news" coverage or aftermath, but what was said is irrelevant to me.  I don't need a debate to evaluate where McCain and Obama stand on things, or how I think each will perform as President.