The older man takes the content but the younger man passes the threshold

Obama is the challenger tonight on foreign policy, the younger man who has to win enough trust to be considered credible.

McCain is the experienced incumbent, who only has to argue his many years and many decisions.

McCain delivered his bit. His problem was that Obama did also. He seemed more than credible enough. It was not hard to imagine him as president.

The basic differences were clear: McCain would be more bold, more aggressive, more confident, whereas Obama would be more cautious, more careful, more selective.

That much is clear.

But a draw for Obama is a loss for McCain tonight. Obama got what he needed--the image in his supporters' minds and among enough of the undecideds that this guy can indeed be commander-in-chief. McCain needed a knockout, because, as the economy proved this week, the following debates will be hard for him, as will the campaign.

Comments

[Robert Langland]

Agree on styles and content.

I believe the old age issue and possibly the health spin is gone now and that a tie falls to the old man not to Obama.

Why? Because, the every day man in the arena was expecting great things of Obama (maybe unrealistic expectations but still...). He was not as good as his press played him up to be. The impression is everything.

With McCain you get what you see, work with him or work to change his mind. His predictability is a strength not a weakness. Ask almost any corporate leader right now what is best "Sandy Weilishness" or a steady hand and a clear predictable vision. With Obama you get caution for sure, but that indicates a constant decision in motion and I can only hope machine politics does not overpower and control him and foreign leaders game him.

I'll have to take whomever we get, but I want consistancy.

[farhad]

Macain had nothing different from Bush either in foriegn policy or economy.he only mention firing the security exchange commission'shead as a solution to the economic problem.where as the problem liein the regultions like Glass stiegle which congress had eliminated andObama had correctly stated regarding the finacial melt down. Obamaalso was clear about,where the problem is regarding the economy;the demand side(the effective purchase power of consumers)the John m.King's argument VS Macain's supply side solution(leave corp'shands open,cut Gov's regultation) Milton Freidman argument.on Iran,Obama was right agian about the important meeting of 5 past 30 years foriegn policies makers secreteris,which all agreed on talks without preconditions with Iran, including Kissenger.

[Dave]

Tom, could you referee from an academic perspective on the difference between tactics and strategy? Obama and McCain seemed to be either using different defnitions or just talking around each other, and I think clarification would be greatly appreciated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hae5tTfQfMwRelevant stuff comes around the 5-minute mark.

Thanks,

[Tom Barnett]

I think there was a change in tactics and strategy. Declaring the COIN/surge combo as exclusively one or the other is esoteric point-scoring. Technically, I would call the pair more a change in tactics, but it was enough of a change as to signal a shift in strategy too, so again, angels dancing on the head of a pin.

[Jarrod Myrick]

Robert,

Does Israel pose an existential threat to Iran?

[Robert Langland]

Existential, not sure why you ask?

Because the Iranian Prez keeps shooting off his mouth or keeps trying to start a "minor" shooting incident with the US Navy for domestic consumption? No, the Israelies are not all reactionaries and especially not when they have to ask permission before they do something.

However, I am very interested in side bar incidents exploding into multi national conflicts - like the Somali hijaking of an Iranian cargo vessel that resulted in burns and the quick death of the hijakers. Must be a real hot boat that's cargo is now available for purchase. Someone arranged for that cargo and that could blow up into something big.

http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2008/09/observing-story-of-mv-iran-deyanat.html

[critt jarvis]

"On strategy and tactics"

James Fallows, The Atlantic, Sep 27, 2008

http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/on_strategy_and_tactics.php

There has been no greater contrast between the Obama and McCain campaigns than the tactical-vs-strategic difference, with McCain demonstrating the primacy of short-term tactics and Obama sticking to a more coherent long-term strategy.

[Sean Meade]

good article, Critt. thanks

[Jarrod Myrick]

I ask for a number of reasons. Some:

Rice and Cheney's mushroom cloud imagery before the Iraq invasion convinced the vast majority of Americans that if Saddam was not disarmed he would at some point in the very near future begin raining nuclear missiles on our 50 states. No one in print or cable news dared dissent. The question I wanted asked then was this: If Saddam does indeed have bullets, how big is his gun? That is, what is the range on the missiles? At that time I didn't know how to go about getting an answer. Now, however, and because both Democrats and Republicans agree that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable (I don't know exactly what that means either but no matter I guess for the time being), and since most everyone appears content to rerun these same dynamics with regard to Iran, I thought Dr. Barnett's disputation chambers are the perfect place to ask: If Iran does indeed get their bullets, how big is its gun? That is, what is the range on the missiles?

Also, conventional wisdom holds that a nuclear Iran will definitely start a region-wide arms race. I don't know exactly what that means either as Pakistan, India, Israel, Russia, China, United States are all nuclear and are relatively well-represented in the region; but if this means Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt go nuclear, then why not openly state it? (If I might myself preempt (or is it prevent?) your first retort, here goes: If anybody's telegraphing punches, it's the neoconservatives and the reactionaries: they can play chess with the Russians and go with Chinese as much as they want to -- I'll keep playing bullshit.)

In addition, because everything's connected, especially Russian and Iranian strategy (tactics?), I was terrificly pleasantly surprised to hear Gates assert that he and Rice were discussing cooperation on missile defense with Russia; and I will be anxiously awaiting future developments in this very important endeavor. Anyway, rogue regimes led by lunatics like Ahmadinejad are a threat to everyone everywhere and everyone knows this, including the overwhelming majority of Iranian citizens; as well as the current leadership of the Russian people, which is why they want a missile shield in the southern Caucasus; as well as the skinny, nerdy, naive, inexperienced, unready junior senator from Illinois.

But why ask why?

[Dave]

Critt, thanks. That was very illuminating.