In some doubt just ten hours before the start time, the first debate between John McCain and Barack Obama started.

Moderator Jim Lehrer plunged into questions about the bailout plan, the nature of the economic crisis, and what to do about it. In effect, the plan to focus on foreign policy was thrown out the window, a decision that seemed to be embraced by the candidates.

The candidates were tentative on the first question. A format that was supposed to encourage debate and conversation between the two did not work, no matter what Lehrer did. Obama and McCain talked to Lehrer—just as they do on the floor of the Senate, where comments are generally addressed to the presiding officer.

Obama addressed his answers to the television audience, looking straight into the camera. In general, this is a better technique to grab the attention and sympathy of the television viewers, i.e. the voters in this election. McCain addressed his answers to Lehrer, so viewers saw his left ear and never got to look in his eyes.

Answers from both Obama and McCain were repetitions of what we have heard in their stump speeches.

The second question about the differences in their approaches to economic issues brought a much livelier and more informative debate. Both cite their records, both bring into evidence the records of the other, and a clear set of difference emerge.

McCain believes that the economy works best when there are fewer regulations. Obama believes that the economy works best when there are regulations that limit the actions of the wealthy and the powerful. They then argue about who the wealthy might be and what are unacceptable limits on the American people.

Lehrer asks what each candidate will forego in light of the cost of the bailout plans. Both go through their favorite bits of waste, but a quick back of the envelope calculation says that they are willing to cut about $20–30 billion (changing Defense contract practices, changing Medicare insurance reimbursement plans). These numbers kind of pale in light of the $700 billion bailout plan.

The numbers finally begin to add up when McCain notes that Obama has $800 billion of spending ideas, and maybe Obama should cut some of those programs. McCain still holds that he will cut waste in government and that will still work in light of the bailout costs. Obama’s response is that huge parts of his spending plans are vital—especially $300 billion of health care for those not covered under current systems.

Halfway through the debate, stagecraft is still pretty stilted. An occasional glance at the other candidate while that person is speaking, but Obama is still talking to the camera and to Lehrer; McCain is still talking solely to Lehrer.

Next question: what are the lessons of Iraq?

McCain—his call for victory, and that our troops will come home in honor. The consequences of defeat would have been unthinkable for Iraq and for US standing in the world. An interesting assumption that the surge has created victory. There is scant evidence of that from military testimony in the last few weeks on Capitol Hill.

Obama—we need to look at how we got into Iraq. It was screwed up from the beginning, has cost way too much, and our presence created a new group of enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Question that focuses on Afghanistan?

More of the same from the Iraq answer. But Obama is filled with actual plans here since he feels that Afghanistan is the true front on the war on terror. So there are ideas about brigades, diplomacy, regional issues and the like.

McCain harkens back to the US support for Afghan groups fighting the Soviet Union in the 1980s. We did not follow through in such a way that prevented the rise of the Taliban. Then McCain points out that Obama’s ideas on Afghanistan look an awful lot like the initial US post-invasion plans for Iraq, and those ideas did not work. McCain’s grasp of tribal loyalties in Afghan culture is a bit tenuous, but it’s nice to see an acknowledgement that cultural issues are important for the US military to understand.

The debate, in a moment of dueling wrist bracelets upon which are written the name of dead soldiers, comes down to this: McCain says we need to honor our dead with victory; Obama says we need to honor our dead by not allowing more to die in vain. Sometime in 1968–69, the American public shifted from the peace with honor argument to the waste of US lives argument. Here in 2008, public opinion is also making the shift to the waste of lives side. Obama may come out ahead on this argument.

On to Iran. Lehrer notes that his five minute discussion segments have all gone long, but that McCain and Obama are equal on time after the first hour.

McCain—Iran is a rogue state that might get nukes. We need a grouping of democratic and wealthy states (i.e. Europe and Japan) to put pressure on Iran to change. And aside from that, Iran is actively taking part in the Iraq violence as well. This is a reference to the “League of Democracies” idea that McCain has been floating for a few months. No other democracies are enthusiastic about such a grouping.

Obama—US policy toward Iran has been a failure over the past eight years, as evidenced by the Iranians bringing nuclear centrifuges on line. A bit of wishful thinking here—US policy toward Iran has been a failure since 1978, across three Republican presidencies and two Democratic presidencies. And the nuclear capabilities have generally come from either the US (leftovers from the Atoms for Peace kind of programs in the 1960s and early 1970s) and our European allies.

Then McCain almost makes one of those gaffes that can ruin a debate—he cannot quite say Ahmadinejad, the Iranian President’s name. But he gets it under control quickly and fluently uses the name twice more before he’s done with his answer.

The conversation takes an interesting turn. McCain accuses Obama of being an foreign policy neophyte who will meet with the leaders of countries that are more or less enemies of the United States (Iran, North Korea) without the proper agreements on what will be accomplished, “with no preconditions.”

Obama replies that diplomacy and talking are preferable to our current policies of isolation and increasing problems. And then Obama cites McCain advisors and Bush administration officials who have also said that talks without preconditions are necessary. And a nice zinger that will play well in Europe, Obama notes that McCain said he might not meet with the prime minister of Spain—Zapatero is a socialist and an opponent of US policies in the Middle East. Since Spain is a fellow NATO member, close US ally, and important member of the EU, this makes a point that foreign policy types will love. It’s unclear how well this point will score with most viewers of the debate.

A bit of fire—McCain begins to belittle this view with special reference to McCain’s friend of 35 years, Dr. Kissinger. The two talk over each other for a bit.

Question on Russia allows both to continue to show their difference. McCain says Obama is naïve (citing Obama’s response to the Russia-Georgia conflict in August). Obama says that McCain is rash and too wedded to 20th century views, not 21st century realities.

Interesting that Russia for both of them is primarily a country with border issues. The center for US foreign policy on Russia ought to be energy policy and the fact that the Russian stock market had to shut down for two and a half days last week while our financial crisis was peaking. Russia is looking more like a failed state in many ways—a failure that would make any issues with Iraq, Afghanistan, or Iran look very small indeed.

We wander on to energy. But not much different here from their stump speeches. Nuclear power provokes an argument about waste storage and reprocessing.

Final question: could there be another 11 September-style attack?

McCain: much less likely today. And the McCain-Lieberman commission made the difference with all its recommendation.

Obama: “we are safer in some ways….” But there are problems with ports and chemical plants and new threats like a nuke in a suitcase. And Al Qaeda is still out there and “working in over 60 countries.” We need to restore American standing in the world to deal with these large international threats.

McCain takes it back to the idea that Obama is naïve and “doesn’t understand” the centrality of victory in Iraq.

Obama belittles the sole focus on Iraq as leaving bin Laden and Al Qaeda still out there and active. And, just to make it more interesting, China is stepping into the power vacuum left by the US because we are so focused on Iraq.

And what about the US as a symbol of freedom and progress for the world? Both think it is important. But McCain sees victory in Iraq as the way to do it. Obama sees Iraq as a diversion from what ought to be done.

A comment on the format: I like it! While not a true debate, the looser time limits let the candidates and moderator Lehrer get into a more natural flow, one that showed the difference between McCain and Obama. It also showed them spinning their wheels a bit, but that’s the nature of a discussion. Now if only they would actually address each other instead of talking to the moderator. I wonder if they are afraid of some kind of encounter that might appear to demean the other—when this happened in the primary debates, it really hurt the candidate accused of acting smug and superior.

Winners and losers: none. This debate will serve to reinforce McCain’s supporters and reinforce Obama’s supporters. The big question is that 10%–15% of still undecided voters and their reaction. Quite frankly, if any of them made up their minds tonight, they were leaning heavily to one candidate or the other already.