Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama spent more than 90 minutes taking rhetorical punches at one another last night at the first Presidential debate of the 2008 campaign.  Perhaps the most striking difference between this debate and those from four years ago between President Bush and Sen. Kerry was how free flowing it was by comparison.  The Senators engaged each other - including eight moments wherein Obama conceded his agreement with Senator McCain and at least eight instances where McCain challenged Sen. Obama’s inexperience.

Amid news that the Iraqis have agreed to a key election law while Iranians do the “Death to Israel” routine, Obama seemed more interested in rehashing the decisions of 2003 instead of considering the problems of 2008.  His repeated return to the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power glazed over how completely wrong he was on the 2007 surge as well as his assessment of the current geopolitical landscape there.  McCain hammered Sen. Obama on this point in what was perhaps his strongest portion of the debate.

On the economic crisis, neither man seemed particularly interested in connecting the turmoil in the financial markets to global security conditions.  The powerful context of that argument should not be implicit: the greatest bulwark against international chaos over the past two decades has been a strong America.  This line of reasoning did reveal itself though in the differences of approach on Russia - and it outlined the broad decision that Americans must make on Election Day.

Senator Obama’s approach to Russia’s attack on Georgia was to call for restraint on both sides while McCain called out the Russians for their naked aggression - and this point is key.  For Sen. Obama, American power is most ably demonstrated when the polls begin to reveal a rebound in our international image.  Global approval will, in his mind, cause allies to be more cooperative and allow coalitions of nations to turn their ire on rogue states.

For McCain, power is best projected when we make clear our principles, define the lines that cannot be crossed, and then muster the resolve to remain committed to both.  Security is best attained when the United States and the rest of the global community stands together on principle and in opposition to the ills we see.

If debates are suppose to reveal differences of philosophy, then this debate was a success if for nothing else that single point.  Neither candidate scored a major telling point against the other nor did they commit an irreversible mistake.  There were no Ronald Reagan moments and there was no Kennedy/Nixon effect.  Instead, the two American candidates for President of the United States stood opposite one another and had an exchange of ideas that people could be proud of, for once.  That’s a win.