Presidential debates: history doesn't always matter

CBS News Photo

We are a modern family. OLGS and I have offices across the hall from each other. Today, we each sit at our PCs, reading the polls, the post-mortem debate analysis and scanning the election district maps for any additional signs of solidification. We call out comments to each other. The conventional wisdom apears to be that Barack won simply by not losing, going up against a congressional veteran successfully. I agree--and given the setup, that's about as good as he could expect.

Clearly, he was much more relaxed than McCain, for all the Arizona senator's vaunted experience. He could pronounce difficult names of leaders in far-off countries. He was very good at framing the economy as a national security issue--McCain finds it difficult to resist the temptation to frame national security as an ideological matter, rather than a practical one with real consequences for real people. And then there's the Eisenhower reference. Poor ol' John made this lovely speech about Eisenhower, a president I barely remember, and I was actually alive. And to make matters worse, the speech was not in reference to the general's years in the White House, but to his leadership in WWII--and the number of people who remember the famous invasion is dwindling very rapidly. The people who resonate to that reference are probably already supporting Senator McCain. And those--the vast majority--who didn't, are just going to see Mac as old, out of touch and someone who, as BO says, just doesn't get it.

And then, he referenced Henry Kissinger and Ronald Reagan--I'm not going to do the stats, but I suspect that there is a significant number of voters who weren't alive during the Reagan years, and if they were not going to vote for BO before, they might now, feeling the need to throw their lot in with someone who has a similar frame of reference. I feel sorry for John. He's trying, but I think his time has passed. As a historian, I'm quite comfortable in saying that historical references are useful only in certain times and places. Last night was not one of those. And OLGS, based on his grunts and cackles from across the hall, agrees with me.

Economic depression, 21st century style

My resolution--not to get down in the mud with the Republicans--has gone south, so to speak. McCain and the Bushies have used the probably manufactured financial crisis to sandbag the Democrats. This may be a tad conspiratorial, but boy, did these guys get religion fast. Quicker than you can say "I believe", the guys who brought you unfettered capitalism for the last eight years have had an epiphany--the times cry out for government intervention, according to the president and his minions.

This is pretty remarkable. First of all, the notion that there will be absolutely no mortages or car loans--the stick used by the president this evening--is absurd. There will be fewer car loans and mortgages, because people will be hurting and folks who can't pay their mortgages anyway probably won't be borrowing more . However, banks do need to make money, and the way they make money is by lending it--in times like these to folks and businesses with gold-plated credit ratings. And the people with the impossible mortgages won't be doing their part to keep this consumer-based economy afloat.

What is interesting is that the sense of the country seems to be--so what? We probably wouldn't have gotten a loan anyway. So while the Dems may have been thown a curve, the notion that we are giving Bush and his friends a blank check doesn't seem to sit well with even the so-called conservative base.

And here's the delicious thing: I heard Newt Gingrich on the radio the other day. He was saying, "Wait a minute" in that professorial way of his. And, he made sense. I never thought I'd see that day. And the other cheery thing--we haven't heard from the Gov. of Alaska for a few hours. Every cloud does have a silver lining.