High tea with a Mr. Ahmadinejad

John McCain and Barack Obama matched wits, traded barbs, and touted their records as they both sought creative ways to not quite answer Jim Lehrer's questions in Friday night's debate. Political analysts seemed to agree that the two battled this one to draw in a debate focused on foreign policy, which McCain was expected to win. Obama supporters thus considered a draw a victory, but the "Obama for Jesus" campaign was left wondering if the senator was beginning to betray his true calling.

While Obama was the more intelligent and sensical speaker of the evening, both were guilty of seeking politically savvy but irrelevant ways of answering questions. When asked how the consequences of a financial bailout plan would affect the things they want to accomplish as president and which programs would be the first to go if the budget shrank, both danced around it with Obama stating which initiatives were priorities and wouldn't be cut, and McCain stating that we need to find ways to cut "wasteful spending." In one of the better comical displays of the evening, McCain finally blurted out, "What about a spending freeze on everything but defense, veteran's affairs, and entitlements?" I'm not sure if it was a question, a suggestion, or a statement of intent. To this Obama deftly replied, "The problem with a spending freeze is you're using a hatchet when you need a scalpel."

Of all the amusing things that McCain did repeatedly (including telling us three times that he was never voted Mr. Congeniality of the Senate and turning the phrase 'Obama just doesn't seem to understand' into a mantra) the most ridiculous was stating "facts" that were false. Obama frequently had to put his foot down and say, "hold on, this simply isn't true." The most egregious of these was when McCain, with a tone of astonished incredulousness over Obama's apparent lack of sympathy for American soldiers, stated that Obama voted against funding our troops. Obama countered intelligently, saying that he voted against a funding bill that gave the president free reign to continue the war as he saw fit and that McCain himself voted against a funding bill that included a time-table for withdrawal. "We had a legitimate difference about time-tables," said Obama, "and I understand that difference." The question remained, however, did America understand the difference, or did McCain's deceitful rhetoric win out over Obama's reasoned explanation?

Obama, in my opinion, did deliver a stinging blow on the "supporting our troops" front later in the debate. McCain more than once used stories of meeting soldiers to demonstrate the importance of staying in Iraq until "victory" is won, including a dramatic and emotionally convincing story where every soldier in the room said, "Give us a chance to win, we don't want our children coming back here." The unattentive viewer would have heard that "the vast majority of soldiers want America to stay in Iraq indefinitely until the war is won," but close attention to detail shows that the meeting was with soldiers who had volunteered to reenlist and stay in longer in Iraq; God bless them for their courage and determination, but that's not quite what I'd call a representative sample of troops. Then later, McCain described meeting a mother of a deceased soldier who told him, "Don't let it be that my son died in vain, make sure that we win this war" and gave him a bracelet in memory of her son, which he agreed to wear with honor. It was the height of McCain's "I understand the military and the military understands me" image, and viewers waited for Obama to cripple under the heat. But Obama calmly replied, "You know what John, I'm wearing a bracelet too;" he went on to describe another mother of a deceased soldier who told him, "Don't let it be that another mother has to go through what I'm going through." Obama continued with his most poignant counter-punch, saying confidently that no American soldier ever dies in vain, because they are faithfully following the orders of their Commander in Chief.

Both Obama and McCain pulled out convenient lines to express humility while touting their good judgement. Obama, in regard to his original opposition to the Iraq war on the grounds that it would embroil us in an unwinnable, prolonged conflict of unknown complexity, said, "I wish I was wrong for the sake of this country, but I wasn't." Later McCain, speaking about another situation where the country did not heed his advice and his predictions of dire outcomes came to bear, said (with heavy, sorrowful emphasis on the first word), "Tragically, I was right."

The two candidates engaged in a humorous exchange over the issue of negotiating with rogue leaders "without preconditions." McCain belabored an unconvincing argument that "sitting across the table" from a leader gives credence to their policies, as he tried to paint Obama as ridiculously naive. Obama attempted to explain the difference between "without preparations" and "without preconditions," finally clarifying that meeting without preconditions "doesn't mean we invite them over for tea." The exchange was filled in with useless arguments over what Henry Kissenger (and other advisers) actually said and what Ronald Reagon (and other presidents) actually did, etc.

While this was a fun and interesting debate to watch, it was difficult to see a man so obviously fit to be Jesus trying to forcefully adapt himself into someone fit to win a presidential election. I mean, you can put lipstick on a pig, a pitbull, or even a hockey mom, but for goodness sake, you've still got yourself a pig, a pitbull, and someone not quite ready to be vice-president of the United States. Honestly, who really believed Obama when he said we needed to "capture and kill" Osama Bin Laden, or that we needed to "crush Al Qaeda?" When push comes to shove we all know that Obama is not a pusher, a shover, or even less a capturer, killer or crusher, and it's saddening to see him depart embarrassingly from his divine calling to be Jesus and act like a Commander in Chief. I know there are those of us who believe that if Barack Obama is president and if we blindly believe in him, he will surely lead us miraculously to an instant salvation, but I beg to differ. Let's be honest with ourselves: the conflict in Iraq will not be solved by pulling out American troops and pressuring the Iraqi government to take more responsibility; and the threat of terrorism will not be vanquished by shifting our military focus to Afghanistan. At best, Barack Obama is offering a more responsible and strategic way of trying to destroy our enemies and secure our position in the world by force. In truth, we need a savior who inspires us to live up to our highest ideals, who challenges us to resist violence peacefully, and who teaches us God's ways rather than espousing the ways of this world. I hope that Senator Obama can live up to this calling, which he has shown signs of doing. May we all pray that God would lead him from temptation and deliver him from evil.