Can heroic past beat solid plan for future?

ST. PAUL, Minn. — A few weeks back, John McCain predicted Barack Obama would give the better acceptance speech. But he said it wouldn't matter.

"I think it's going to be substance that matters," McCain had said. "I think it's going to be vision for America and I think it's going to be concrete plans of action."

I would hope so. I got the privilege of going to both Thursday night's speech and Obama's in Denver (which now seems like it was a month ago.) I heard countless surrogates praise and pillory the two, and am now steeped in their biographies.

McCain was right — there's no doubt Obama's got the youthful energy and the way with words. McCain last night was gracious and good-hearted, reminding me why I like him. But he was also stilted, meandering. He seemed more wistful than action-packed.

But so what, right? They're not running for speechmaker-in-chief. So both here and in Denver, I decided to adopt McCain's view of what matters. I kept a running checklist of substance and concrete plans.

Who has them? And who relies more on platitudes, rhetoric or vague appeals?

The substance winner was: Obama. Isn't he supposed to be the squishy one?

Remember the Iraq war? McCain last night scarcely mentioned it, except to say the troop surge had worked. I'm puzzled by this. How will we get out of Iraq? What is his general philosophy? He never said. It's the biggest challenge, by far, facing the incoming president, and he never brought it up.

McCain also didn't say much about how he hopes to repair the economy. He did make it clear his conservative vision — that limiting the size of government is the best way to help the economy. And he said he'll cut taxes on corporations and give a larger child-tax exemption.

But he never mentioned the crippling federal budget deficit, or suggested even a hint of a plan for how to tackle it. The words "Medicaid" or "Medicare" or "Social Security" never crossed his lips.

I spent four days at the GOP convention, and I don't really know what specific things they plan to do if elected.

Except on energy. Both candidates were crystal-clear that ending dependence on foreign oil is a priority. McCain called his plan "the most ambitious national project in decades."

It's oil drilling, nuclear plants, clean coal, natural gas and pushing wind and solar technologies. Obama said roughly the same, only without so much emphasis on nuclear and oil drilling.

There was a lot of talk about reforming Washington, but no detail into how. McCain also spoke about education, which was good to hear. But his ideas — for vouchers, school choice and breaking the grip of the teacher unions — are almost entirely local, not federal, matters.

There was a passage from McCain that I think summed up his case for the presidency.

"I know how the world works," he said. "I know the good and the evil in it. I know how to work with leaders who share our dreams of a freer, safer and more prosperous world, and how to stand up to those who don't. I know how to secure the peace."

He is saying: Trust me.

Maybe we will. I mostly do. McCain proved again last night how honorable he is. He didn't attack Obama the person or seek to drum up votes with battle cries to continue the culture wars (we got a full dose of all that the night before).

And his personal story about learning his limits in a cell in Hanoi is stirring. It brought a lump to my throat.

McCain's got biography, a strong record and Sarah Palin. He really is a hero. But it's the other guy who's got most of the concrete plans for action.

So I stick by what I impetuously predicted last week. This election is Obama's, to win or lose. He sounded like the future. McCain, last night, sounded more like he was looking back on a great career than getting ready to start a new one.

Danny Westneat: 206-464-2086 or dwestneat@seattletimes.