‘If al-Qaeda and militant Islamism did not exist, I would be much more comfortable with Barack Obama,” explains Debra Burlingame. Burlingame, a former attorney, is the sister of Charles F. “Chic” Burlingame III, who was murdered on September 11, 2001, when the plane he was piloting, American Airlines flight 77, was crashed into the Pentagon. She has been a frequent commentator on the war and spoke to National Review Online editor Kathryn Lopez Saturday morning about Friday night’s first presidential debate.

Kathryn Jean Lopez: Who won that first debate? Debra Burlingame: I thought John McCain won, easily. I realize that Americans who come at the economy with a “what are you going to do for me” posture might be more attracted to what they heard from Barack Obama. He said the feel-good words about protecting the little guy. But he’s going to raise taxes on the job providers. I think McCain did a very good job of showing that Obama is a typical tax-and-spend Democrat. When he was pressed, more than once, to name the programs he would cut, he named the ones he wouldn’t cut, and then added couple more he’d create. Does anyone believe Obama would wrestle the budget to the floor and win? Obama could point to no record of rolling up his sleeves and doing the tough job of hammering out a work product that mediates competing interests. On foreign policy, it was like watching the wise old man take an opinionated college debater to school. McCain exposed him. Lopez: Did you have expectations going in? Burlingame: I did not. I know the media like to talk about atmospherics, who got off a good sound bite, who used humor to his advantage, tone, and style. I was listening closely for substance and I wanted to see these two go head to head on that. I do not give points for style, although I must say, it was very smart of Senator Obama to repeatedly call Senator McCain “John.” It was very smooth, it very subtly suggested “I am your equal.” But, of course, when the subject of meeting with Ahmadinejad “without preconditions” but “with preparations” came up, “John” appeared to have the clearer sense of how these things play out in the real world. Lopez: Could you ever vote for Obama? Why (not)? Burlingame: If I could wipe out all I heard Senator Obama say in the primary season — he was then presenting himself with the more moderate positions; he now says he supports missile defense, as opposed to scrapping it — I’d take him more seriously. If al-Qaeda and militant Islamism did not exist, I would be much more comfortable with Barack Obama. He is, at best, a conventional-war commander-in-chief. His resume is so shockingly thin, he is utterly dependent on the advice of those around him. That concerns me deeply. The president has a million people competing for his ear. Without more experience in world affairs, how will he decide whom to listen to? Will he take the path of least resistance? I don’t believe I could ever vote for him because, despite his claim that Sen. McCain is about yesterday and he is about tomorrow, I think he wants to take us back to a defensive posture that would work for our enemies, not us. Lopez: If you could ever ask him one question what would it be? Burlingame: Senator Obama, you distinguished yourself from your Democratic rivals in the primary season as having better judgment because you opposed the war in Iraq in 2002. Knowing what we know now about Saddam Hussein from the independent Iraq Survey Group (Dulfer) Report — that he had the capability to produce chemical weapons within three to six months (and that his son, Uday Hussein, head of Fedayeen Saddam, was openly advocating the use of chemical weapons on U.S. troops), that he was skimming billions of dollars in the Oil-For-Food program and was interested in off-the-shelf nuclear weapons, that he was providing safe haven for terrorists, that he was training and financing suicide bombers, what do you think Iraq would be doing today if Saddam were alive and still in power? Lopez: Anything you’d ask McCain? Burlingame: Political experts say the Republican party is going to lose seats in both the Senate and the House this November. If that is the case, how do you expect to get anything done if the Democrats have a 60-seat majority? Why won’t we simply have more gridlock? Won’t your Supreme Court nominees be filibustered if they are perceived to hew too far to the right? How does a Maverick cope with a veto-proof majority? Lopez: What’s most important to you this election? Burlingame: I believe we have to do several things at once, secure the economy, finish the mission in Iraq and Afghanistan, and preserve our children’s future. Ultimately, I believe that energy policy is the most important issue today in terms of securing the country and our children’s future. We must throw everything we have at it. Drilling, clean coal, flex-fuels, nuclear, wind, solar, with a mind to the fact that 70 percent of our energy needs are for transportation. Wind and solar won’t move automobiles or put airplanes in the sky. We must stop this massive transfer of wealth that is taking place, year after year after year. It is imperative that we stop funding both sides of the war on terror. Lopez: If you could have a conversation with every voter before he votes, what would you say to him? Burlingame: I would say, get past the rhetoric and ask yourself the same kind of questions you would ask of someone who comes to your door to try and sell you something. How will it work? What’s it going to cost? How do we pay for it? Finally, I would say, whom do you trust to answer those questions straight, then follow through and actually deliver? Words do matter, but deeds are the best predictor of future action.