Here are some reactions to tonight's debate. I took notes, but I probably won't cover everything I wrote down. I also want to share some articles I've come across over the past few days.
1. I pretty much agree with what Pat Buchanan said on MSNBC: McCain did well on policy, but Obama kept up his successful tactic of playing things cool. McCain needed to hit a home run this evening, and he didn't. I won't be surprised if Obama wins the election, but, at the same time, I don't rule out a McCain victory. Sarah Palin excites the Republican Party's conservative base, so it may not stay home, as a large number of them did in the 2000 election. There's also no Ross Perot to keep a candidate from getting the majority, as occurred in 1992 and 1996, the last time a Democrat won. So I guess I'll have to wait and see what happens.
2. I think Obama nullified the Ayers accusation by pointing out the Republicans on the Annenberg commission. But I wish McCain brought up Ayers' plan to radicalize education.
3. McCain looked befuddled and exasperated. Some say this will hurt him. Personally, I didn't think he came across as arrogant and condescending, as did the sighing Prince Albert in his first 2000 debate with George W. Bush. I actually liked it when McCain portrayed Obama's position on vouchers as bizarre, right before he gave his closing statement.
4. Kudos for Bob Schieffer for pointing out that government funding of education doesn't necessarily mean results. I know a liberal woman from Italy, who pointed out to me that America's public school system is far more generous than that in her own country of residence. I liked it when McCain talked about the need to reform Head Start, since it reminded me of Arnold Vinick's bold declaration on the West Wing that "Head Start doesn't work." But I think that Obama came across as a moderate on the education issue by pointing out his disagreements with the teachers' unions, including his support for charter schools. And he also nodded his head in agreement when McCain defended reform rather than throwing money at the problem, which conveys open-mindedness. Again, McCain should have brought up Bill Ayers' plan to radicalize education.
5. How will McCain spend money on autism research and alternative energy, when he supports an across-the-board spending freeze? Is the freeze a temporary measure, which he seemed to imply when he said he would freeze, then apply a scalpel? The freeze appears to be an off-the-cuff idea he came up with at the first debate, the same way that he proposed a mortgage bailout out of left field in the second one. McCain did well to ask why we have to spend more money, but my impression is that he wants more funds for autism research and alternative energy. How will he do that with a spending freeze?
6. The candidates mostly looked into the camera when they talked to Joe the Plumber. And, by the way, Obama admitted that this guy makes over $250,000 a year. So why was he trying to reassure Joe that his proposal gives tax cuts to the middle class? It raises taxes on Joe, which was why Joe was rightfully concerned. And I agree with McCain's question: Why should we raise taxes on anyone? Moreover, when economists calculate the deficits that will result from the candidates' plans, do they assume that a tax cut means a revenue loss? When Reagan and Bush II cut taxes, revenue remained high.
Update on Joe the Plumber: See XHWA's comment and the following discussion.
7. Obama said that McCain voted for four out of five of Bush's budgets. I read an interesting article a few days ago by Tara Wall, Obama and Bush are not so far apart. She claims that "Obama voted for Bush's budgets, which included 19 spending bills."
McCain hasn't fully played his hand on government spending, probably because he'd alienate certain constituencies by doing so. He can't say that he opposed Bush's massive prescription drug entitlement, for example, because some people actually like that entitlement. He made some good points in tonight's debate, such as his opposition to disastrous ethanol subsidies that Senator Obama supported. And he made the same good point that he made in the other debates about Obama's support for earmarks. Even Obama acknowledged that there "are lots of screwy things we spend money on." But this point of McCain's hasn't helped him in the polls thus far, so I doubt it will have much of an effect in the election.
8. Obama brought up equal pay for women. But McCain hires more women for his staff and pays them better (and more equitably) than Barack Obama does for his (see here).
Also, I think that Dennis Prager asks a good question about women's pay: "[Y]ou said that 'women make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes.' If that is so, why don't employers only hire women whenever possible? What employer wouldn't want to save 23 percent for the same work? Is it possible that many women choose more flexible hours, want jobs with less travel and may choose less demanding work given their desire to be home more?" (see here).
Yeah, if women make less because of discrimination, wouldn't employers hire more women to cut costs?
9. Most of the negative ads that I've seen have been from the McCain campaign. But I don't watch prime-time TV that much, so maybe I've missed the Obama negativity. And, while I agree that Palin should've rebuked the one or two crazies at her rally, did Obama criticize those who chanted "no pit-bull" after his "lipstick on a pig" remark?
10. McCain must have some gaffe-machines on his staff. Students are a special interest? McCain is focusing on Ayers to shift attention away from the economy? Are they actually saying this to the press? Or is there a leaker? Either way, it's not good.
11. Obama was listing all the influential people with whom he associates. I didn't hear Jim Johnson of Fannie Mae fame. Or John Glenn of the Keating Five. McCain could have put Obama on the defensive there, at least on Jim Johnson.