Too Personal?
| Fri Sep. 26, 2008 8:44 PM PDT
TOO PERSONAL?....The CNN folks are saying that all the snap polls show Obama the winner of tonight's debate. There's nothing too surprising about that, but I'd sure like to know why. I've heard all this stuff so many times before that it's almost impossible for me to have a genuine reaction to either guy, so I can only guess what average viewers were reacting to. Best guess is that they thought McCain was too snarky and took a few too many personal shots. That's not presidential.
UPDATE: For the record, CNN's poll has Obama winning 51%-38%. CBS has Obama winning 39%-25%.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
I watched tonight's debate in what, for the Republican base, is surely the belly of the Beast. I was in Cambridge, Massachusetts, at a gathering of highly respected and accomplished academics ? including a noted economist, a sociologist and a political scientist with expertise in leadership theory and mediation. (For the record, I am neither respected nor an academic.)
While all of us are ardent Obama supporters, every one of us thought McCain had the better of the evening. We were troubled by McCain's deceptive and sometimes meaningless (but still effective) use of words like "victory" and "defeat," his relentless recitation of the phrase "What Senator Obama fails to understand . . .," and his assurances that he could and would cut spending (along with his specific reminders of past accomplishments and breaks with his party). We thought Obama let McCain off the hook on the fact that the Iraq surge was now history and that the next step was to withdraw intelligently (something the Iraqi government now says it wants us to do). We thought Obama began far too many of his comments with variations on the phrase "John is right when he says . . ." and we predicted that the McCain camp will assemble an ad consisting of all these many occasions strung together.
We thought Obama was too willing to be discursive and detailed instead of folksy and direct ? and that McCain (with one huge misstep in his rambling and overlong story of Ike and D-Day) made better use of anecdote.
You can imagine our surprise and pleasure when the commentators we saw generally rated the debate a draw, and the snap polls and focus group data gave Obama a convincing win. (Aside from the usual partisan Republicans, the only commentator I heard who echoed our initial reaction was James Coomarasamy of the BBC World Service.)
Where our expectations for Obama too high? Has a majority of American voters already decided in favor of Obama for many good and sufficient reasons and therefore gives him the benefit of the doubt?
I have long believed that the GOP has prospered by practicing what Josh Marshall has so memorably called the "Bitch Slap Theory of Electoral Politics" which suggests that the nastier and more unfair your attacks, the more respect you will achieve from the media and electorate for your toughness, determination and skill.
Is it really possible that we have entered an era in which civility, thoughtfulness and nuance are positive attributes for a political leader?
Or were we right after all: did McCain speak effectively for and to a fearful, angry and essentially conservative electorate that believes deeply in American power and exceptionalism?
Did we see a different debate the one watched by everybody else?
A thought for the commenters advocating Obama being more aggressive towards McCain:
At this point the campaign it is no longer about convincing the more or less firmly aligned voters, it is all about persuading the people in the mushy middle. A large junk of that crowd are people who, as far as politics is concerned, happily exists for 46 months on a low content diet and only pay some sort of attention during the two months between Labor Day and Election Day.
Without any offence intended, I think it is fair to say that many of these 'low-interest' voters go by superficial impressions, gut feelings and personal leanings/prejudices when they make up their mind. I would also venture the idea that for low-interest voters both Obama and McCain come with a significant piece of baggage. For McCain that baggage consists in the fact that he is a Republican, for Obama it is his race.
McCain can actively try to do something about his baggage and that is why he and Palin are so desperately trying to play the maverick card. Obama doesn't really have that much of a good option which would allow him to be proactive about the race aspect. The best thing for him to happen would be to have that whole aspect play as little role as possible.
Therefore, for Obama to be seen as the angry or aggressive black person could be rather counterproductive with some of the folks the campaign is now about. Obama appears to be well aware of this and so far he seems to be dosing the level of aggression versus McCain just fine. For example, confronting McCain in personal terms on Irak ('You were wrong ...') is an example of a well-chosen and well-executed point of attack. What would seem to have been much less necessary in the debate, was for Obama to repeat several time 'John is right?'. He should drop that right away.
I watched tonight's debate in what, for the Republican base, is surely the belly of the Beast. I was in Cambridge, Massachusetts, at a gathering of highly respected and accomplished academics ? including a noted economist, a sociologist and a political scientist with expertise in leadership theory and mediation. (For the record, I am neither respected nor an academic.)
While all of us are ardent Obama supporters, every one of us thought McCain had the better of the evening. We were troubled by McCain's deceptive and sometimes meaningless (but still effective) use of words like "victory" and "defeat," his relentless recitation of the phrase "What Senator Obama fails to understand . . .," and his assurances that he could and would cut spending (along with his specific reminders of past accomplishments and breaks with his party). We thought Obama let McCain off the hook on the fact that the Iraq surge was now history and that the next step was to withdraw intelligently (something the Iraqi government now says it wants us to do). We thought Obama began far too many of his comments with variations on the phrase "John is right when he says . . ." and we predicted that the McCain camp will assemble an ad consisting of all these many occasions strung together.
We thought Obama was too willing to be discursive and detailed instead of folksy and direct ? and that McCain (with one huge misstep in his rambling and overlong story of Ike and D-Day) made better use of anecdote.
You can imagine our surprise and pleasure when the commentators we saw generally rated the debate a draw, and the snap polls and focus group data gave Obama a convincing win. (Aside from the usual partisan Republicans, the only commentator I heard who echoed our initial reaction was James Coomarasamy of the BBC World Service.)
Where our expectations for Obama too high? Has a majority of American voters already decided in favor of Obama for many good and sufficient reasons and therefore gives him the benefit of the doubt?
I have long believed that the GOP has prospered by practicing what Josh Marshall has so memorably called the "Bitch Slap Theory of Electoral Politics" which suggests that the nastier and more unfair your attacks, the more respect you will achieve from the media and electorate for your toughness, determination and skill.
Is it really possible that we have entered an era in which civility, thoughtfulness and nuance are positive attributes for a political leader?
Or were we right after all: did McCain speak effectively for and to a fearful, angry and essentially conservative electorate that believes deeply in American power and exceptionalism?
Did we see a different debate the one watched by everybody else?
A thought for the commenters advocating Obama being more aggressive towards McCain:
At this point the campaign it is no longer about convincing the more or less firmly aligned voters, it is all about persuading the people in the mushy middle. A large junk of that crowd are people who, as far as politics is concerned, happily exists for 46 months on a low content diet and only pay some sort of attention during the two months between Labor Day and Election Day.
Without any offence intended, I think it is fair to say that many of these 'low-interest' voters go by superficial impressions, gut feelings and personal leanings/prejudices when they make up their mind. I would also venture the idea that for low-interest voters both Obama and McCain come with a significant piece of baggage. For McCain that baggage consists in the fact that he is a Republican, for Obama it is his race.
McCain can actively try to do something about his baggage and that is why he and Palin are so desperately trying to play the maverick card. Obama doesn't really have that much of a good option which would allow him to be proactive about the race aspect. The best thing for him to happen would be to have that whole aspect play as little role as possible.
Therefore, for Obama to be seen as the angry or aggressive black person could be rather counterproductive with some of the folks the campaign is now about. Obama appears to be well aware of this and so far he seems to be dosing the level of aggression versus McCain just fine. For example, confronting McCain in personal terms on Irak ('You were wrong ...') is an example of a well-chosen and well-executed point of attack. What would seem to have been much less necessary in the debate, was for Obama to repeat several time 'John is right?'. He should drop that right away.
McCain was nasty, rambling, and repetitive. He didn't say much, he just insulted Obama. Obama, OTOH, was calm, cogent, and clearly better informed. I'll admit that I'm completely in the tank for my guy (and have been, the campaign recently informed me, since Jan., 2007 ... oh and by the way, could we have more money please), but it couldn't have been more obvious. I had to turn it off, because I was embarrassed for McCain.
Early polls (CBS) of "independents" listening to the debate, for what they're worth, give a large edge to Obama on the economy and a slight edge to McCain on national security. If Obama is close to McCain on national security and, therefore, passes the dreaded and feared "commander in chief" test, then he has for all intents and purposes clearly succeeded in the first debate. And he (whew) is past the greatest danger point for him in the debates. It should be: the economy, stupid, from this point on...not good for McCain. And now it gets truly weird: Palin. Afer the reviews of The Great Katy Fiasco, she should be freaked out. Will we see her melt down pathetically into goo under the pressure or see her be just numb, distant and babbling disconnected talking points? Get ready to look away.
McCain came off as Grumpy Grampa. Obama came off as calm, intelligent, and focused. Win for Obama.
What many partisans miss is that both of these guys have positive favorability ratings from the American public -- most people like both of them. McCain's disdain for Obama -- refusing to even look at him, and giving a tight, angry smile while listening to his answers -- doesn't go over well, because most people don't have that disdain for Obama. And Obama treated McCain with personal respect, while disagreeing with him clearly and crisply on the issues. That's much closer to where most people are.
Submitted by Baxil (not verified) on Fri Sep. 26, 2008 9:01 PM PDT.
From what I saw of the debate, they were throwing punches about equally (and the personal slam that stands out for me was actually from Obama: finally mentioning the McCain "Bomb, Bomb Iran" song to the public at large). What seemed to me to make the difference was in how they reacted to the various attacks leveled at them.
Obama had a few great judo pivots, such as taking down McCain's earmarks nonsense by contrasting the $18 billion in earmarks with his $300 billion giveaway. Obama was very aggressive on correcting the record when McCain went for the talking points, which may not have scored him points with viewers but did let him control the direction of the discussion.
They both hit hard and didn't make any major gaffes. Obama seemed to be controlling the debate a bit better, and it feels to me (as a fan) that he also made more substantial points. But definitely the counterpunching was an Obama win.
The CNN poll showed a large pro-Obama margin in the over-50 group, which has been polling for McCain.
It's possible that the financial crisis, bank failures, and talk of the great depression have focused enough minds on the fact that, after 8 years of a Republican administration everyone's life savings is facing an "existential threat". And this may be playing a larger role than the details of any one debate.
It's real simple. Foreign policy is McCain's turf. Obama wasn't blown off the field. Instead Obama more than held his own. He came off appearing smart and thoughtful. Smart and thoughtful is a very powerful combination right now. All Obama had to do was stay close. He did. That was a win for Obama.
To many undecided voters, I think it all comes down to style and what that conveys about character. McCain came off as snide, aggressive and close to losing his cool. He never once looked Obama in the eye, while Obama comtinually addressed McCain directly. I don't think you can underestimate what that says to people, especially people who know enough about the candidates' positions but are still sitting on the fence. When Obama attacked McCain, he looked right at McCain. McCain attacked Obama all night and never had the balls to say it to his face. It displayed complete contempt, and that appeals only to diehard supporters.
Don't know how much faith to put in it, but the CNN reaction line for independents sagged every time McCain attacked Obama.
Restoring-faith-in-people moment: watching the ratings drop when both candidates were talking about the bracelets they'd been given from mothers of dead soldiers.
Apparently there are some levels of pandering that break the grotesqueness barrier.
Partian moment: watching McCain's ratings sink when he mentioned having been a POW.
This opinion is completely biased, but here I go:
At first I thought it was a draw, but McCain did really come across as snarky. Also, his repetition of the line "he doesn't understand" I thought completely backfired because Obama obviously does understand. McCain really has strange body language and a creepy smile.
There was also McCain's inability to make eye contact.
Obama played it safe, as he always does, and let a lot of opportunities to attack go by. But who am I to judge? He's a very talented politician. You don't know he's winning until after the fact. I'm more confident than ever that he's going to win this thing.
I thought it was a draw, maybe McCain on points. But then I started talking to some friends and family and they were all talking about how nasty and condescending McCain was. It was a huge turnoff to them. He came across as adolescent and not at all presidential. I'm thinking that explains the polls: the debate wasn't won and lost on what they said, but on how they said it.
Slightly OT, but we were watching Chris Matthews on MSNBC for a while and I was wondering. Matthews and Buchanan: they are aware of microphones, are they not? Do they realize they don't need to shout to be heard?
Just wondering.
It depends on the question...
If it's a debate competition, then there was a draw.
But if the questions are... Who's got the right stuff to be the next president? Who will bring some change and oversight? Who will listen to intelligent advisors? Who will listen to dissenting opinion?
Only Obama.
Tonight, watching McCain, it was clear that if he wins we will may really end up with a Pres. Palin. McCain proved tonite that he will implode if Ahmewhateverjad says anything about McCain's mama... seriously! ;)
Obama had a much more relaxed and 'Presidential' demeanor. He was collected, even smiling at times. McCain was just dripping with contempt and hatred for Obama, and it was distracting. No, it was creepy. I thought the guy was going to implode. Obama was able readily enumerate detail after detail on various issues, while the only thing I took away from McCain was "Preconditions! Preconditions! PRECONDITIONS AGGGGGHHHH!" I just didn't see how he advanced the notion that he was different from the Bush administration, or how would be able to unite the country or rebuild America's image. He was just awful.
Looking at the polls and reactions (which as I said above were so at odds with my own sense of the debate) I'm now wondering if the undecideds were simply looking for a reason or reason enough to support Obama. That would explain the reaction because no matter who won, it's totally clear that Obama at least passed. Perhaps that was enough for a lot of undecided voters to jump on board.
About halfway through I had a recollection of an old Bugs Bunny/Daffy Duck cartoon where Daffy wants some prize or award or something and keeps shouting "Mine! Mine! Mine!" which seemed to sum up McCain's attitude.
Returns I've seen so far seem to show Independents watching the show breaking slightly for Obama. But after the spin cycle finishes, who knows what will come out of the wash?
McCain looked and sounded like a re-animated corpse. He lisp-whistled through his dentures, or maybe they're his teeth. He maundered, he got lost, he insisted on irrelevancies. He was the epitome of you damn "kids get off my lawn. He was Grandpa Simpson".
Surely you noticed.
Really felt that Obama would give America back it's global status with his behavior and intelligence. McCain came off as just what he is - an angry little man.....using Iraq to have a "win" to make-up for Viet Nam. Hey, it's 30 years ago already - time to let it go. As far as McCain taking care of the vets - don't believe that one.
Submitted by hollywood (not verified) on Fri Sep. 26, 2008 9:58 PM PDT.
I thought the bit about McCain not wanting to look at or address Obama was odd. Either it was an intentional tactic apparently to appeal to folks who are uncomfortable with the idea of a younger black President, or it was unconscious reflecting a soft sort of racism and/or a totally outsized ego. Not good McCain.
Best Obama moment was when McCain weirdly tried to suggest that he was Bush-like in his certainty of his own positions. Obama started to grin and then the camera focused solely on McCain but you could hear Obama chortling a bit. He didn't mention it when the talking stick came back to him - he didn't need to.
Submitted by truth (not verified) on Fri Sep. 26, 2008 10:01 PM PDT.
On substance the debate was close. Both candidates made their cases.
On style, the debate went to Obama. McCain went in with a very aggressive and angry attitude. People don't like anger. It's not persuasive. If the debater is angry before the audience is angry, it just doesn't work. McCain's anger is coming out of his own feelings about Obama (and about losing). Rather than lay out his case and let the audience get angry because of the facts, McCain is angry from the get-go and it is why he lost the debate.
Joshua Norton:About halfway through I had a recollection of an old Bugs Bunny/Daffy Duck cartoon where Daffy wants some prize or award or something and keeps shouting "Mine! Mine! Mine!" which seemed to sum up McCain's attitude.I think the short you have in mind is "Ali Baba Bunny." The line in question starts at 6:02 (and then again at 6:37).
Cute cartoon, though probably a bit un-PC for today's entertainment environment.
How about this: Obama is simply a more appealing person than McCain is, and voters answering these polls are answering based on things that have little to do with what the candidates actually said. He's good looking, charismatic, and, in part because Republicans are unpopular, riding a wave of personal popularity. I've felt from the start that, because of this appeal, Obama will win all the debates as long as they are close in terms of actual performance. He's just more -- dare I say it? -- likeable.
I suspect there are many who have watched these candidates debate in the primaries who were pleasantly surprised tonight. I think both did well, maybe personal bests in simple debating terms (appearance, civility, knowing their talking points, responding well to the questioner, throwing punches, etc.).
For those who haven't seen them recently it might have surprised or informed many people that Barack Obama is very well informed, able to take a punch with a smile and knows very well how to throw punches. These are of course debate punches and not the real kind.
John McCain was quite energetic and feisty in his own slightly flailing way. He sometimes hit solidly with a punch, but then usually followed up by flailing around and meandering far from the question. It was sometimes hard to tell whether he was trying to get to talking points or just lost the thread.
On substance, I think it's clear Obama showed he has his point of view on foreign policy issues and has a big world view of how economic issues here at home very often tie in to foreign relations. McCain doesn't seem to make that connection. McCain stresses experience and he has the passport to prove it. But, if you don't trust his judgment, then all this shows is he's been around a long time. Judgment isn't guaranteed to improve with age. Obama pointed to several specific things to make it clear he values judgment above ONLY experience. In his hands the judgment with experience could produce far better results than McCain with only experience.
On economic issues it's pretty clear John McCain still needs to be educated. Obama stays quiet when he doesn't know and appears very willing to let others advise him to provide information so he can use his world view and judgment to make decisions.
I think this debate showed very clearly that John McCain really is a prisoner of war and that it shapes his view of the world and how he would respond to many foreign relations issues. It also showed Obama as intelligent, having good judgment, but still in need of the kind of experience nobody really has until they walk into the White House Oval office and assume command.
If you were worried about McCain and wondered if Obama is ready, then this debate could help you decide. If the snap polls are accurate, then many people may have done that.
Now Obama can consider campaigning in communities like St. Petersburg, Florida without any fear of being rejected out of hand. He ought to go campaign with Senator Nelson and Rep. Kathy Kastor.
Next up, Veep debate in St. Louis -- hold onto your seats.
I watched tonight's debate in what, for the Republican base, is surely the belly of the Beast. I was in Cambridge, Massachusetts, at a gathering of highly respected and accomplished academics including a noted economist, a sociologist and a political scientist with expertise in leadership theory and mediation. (For the record, I am neither respected nor an academic.)
While all of us are ardent Obama supporters, every one of us thought McCain had the better of the evening. We were troubled by McCain's deceptive and sometimes meaningless (but still effective) use of words like "victory" and "defeat," his relentless recitation of the phrase "What Senator Obama fails to understand . . .," and his assurances that he could and would cut spending (along with his specific reminders of past accomplishments and breaks with his party). We thought Obama let McCain off the hook on the fact that the Iraq surge was now history and that the next step was to withdraw intelligently (something the Iraqi government now says it wants us to do). We thought Obama began far too many of his comments with variations on the phrase "John is right when he says . . ." and we predicted that the McCain camp will assemble an ad consisting of all these many occasions strung together.
We thought Obama was too willing to be discursive and detailed instead of folksy and direct and that McCain (with one huge misstep in his rambling and overlong story of Ike and D-Day) made better use of anecdote.
You can imagine our surprise and pleasure when the commentators we saw generally rated the debate a draw, and the snap polls and focus group data gave Obama a convincing win. (Aside from the usual partisan Republicans, the only commentator I heard who echoed our initial reaction was James Coomarasamy of the BBC World Service.)
Where our expectations for Obama too high? Has a majority of American voters already decided in favor of Obama for many good and sufficient reasons and therefore gives him the benefit of the doubt?
I have long believed that the GOP has prospered by practicing what Josh Marshall has so memorably called the "Bitch Slap Theory of Electoral Politics" which suggests that the nastier and more unfair your attacks, the more respect you will achieve from the media and electorate for your toughness, determination and skill.
Is it really possible that we have entered an era in which civility, thoughtfulness and nuance are positive attributes for a political leader?
Or were we right after all: did McCain speak effectively for and to a fearful, angry and essentially conservative electorate that believes deeply in American power and exceptionalism?
Did we see a different debate the one watched by everybody else?
Two points on why Obama kicked McTumor face's liver-spotted bum.
1.) WOW, what a change since the Democratic primaries! He has really improved his debating since then. very impressive!
2.) At the end, whey the nominees joined their wives, Barack and Michelle went over to McPhDinEconomics and trophy # 2 and shook hands. That was graceful and respectful. That is EXACTLY what is needed in a president when meeting with heads of state. Even if you don't like the guy, you still show respect, kindness, and poise. Do we really want a president with a temper meeting with the heads of Russia and China?!?
My observations were a lot like those of Tchampmass. I watched the debate in a room of Obama supporters who are also public relations veterans, some of whom conduct media training. The consensus was McCain came out ahead for the reasons Tchampmass cites.
Obama was too focused on content to score any style points or attempt to rebrand Mccain, using the types of labels and phrases McCain used on him.
Still, if the pundits and polls say differently, I'm glad to be wrong.
Submitted by mg (not verified) on Fri Sep. 26, 2008 11:21 PM PDT.
While all of us are ardent Obama supporters, every one of us thought McCain had the better of the evening. --Posted by: Tchampmass
Here's a question: if Obama had kept saying "What Senator McCain fails to understand is...." how do you think the people you were in that room with would have reacted? I think they would have felt Obama was being "presumptuous" and condescending and repetitious. I think McCain came off along those lines. Nobody likes being lectured to by someone who is asking them for something -- like their vote.
Tchampmass, my husband (a PhD) had the same reaction you and your group had. But I had to remind him of the people that were still undecided, and I figured *they* would respond well to Obama. I also think the glow will fade from McCain's performance with time, while people will be reminded of what Obama said every time they hear something come up in the news or continue to struggle daily with the ongoing problems in their lives. There was just more to ponder in terms of substance and detail.
I am a middle class working American with some education. What I was tought was manners, look at someone when speaking to you, acknowledge that person and most of all it doesn't matter who you are a smile is worth MILLION VOTES! SO SMILE OBAMA
Amanda Case
Submitted by wmmbb (not verified) on Sat Sep. 27, 2008 12:33 AM PDT.
Assuming the election is close, it is the swing voters in the swing states that count. Were they watching, or listening?
A thought for the commenters advocating Obama being more aggressive towards McCain:
At this point the campaign it is no longer about convincing the more or less firmly aligned voters, it is all about persuading the people in the mushy middle. A large junk of that crowd are people who, as far as politics is concerned, happily exists for 46 months on a low content diet and only pay some sort of attention during the two months between Labor Day and Election Day.
Without any offence intended, I think it is fair to say that many of these 'low-interest' voters go by superficial impressions, gut feelings and personal leanings/prejudices when they make up their mind. I would also venture the idea that for low-interest voters both Obama and McCain come with a significant piece of baggage. For McCain that baggage consists in the fact that he is a Republican, for Obama it is his race.
McCain can actively try to do something about his baggage and that is why he and Palin are so desperately trying to play the maverick card. Obama doesn't really have that much of a good option which would allow him to be proactive about the race aspect. The best thing for him to happen would be to have that whole aspect play as little role as possible.
Therefore, for Obama to be seen as the angry or aggressive black person could be rather counterproductive with some of the folks the campaign is now about. Obama appears to be well aware of this and so far he seems to be dosing the level of aggression versus McCain just fine. For example, confronting McCain in personal terms on Irak ('You were wrong ...') is an example of a well-chosen and well-executed point of attack. What would seem to have been much less necessary in the debate, was for Obama to repeat several time 'John is right '. He should drop that right away.
Submitted by MsLaurel (not verified) on Sat Sep. 27, 2008 2:10 AM PDT.
Say the buzz-word of your choice, and McCain can string together enough empty statements to make your eyes glaze over --without ever drawing a conclusion or making a point. What really turned my stomach, however, was McCain repeatedly declaring that "veterans know" he'll "take care of them:" McCain took care of them alright, when he voted against the last GI bill. Furthermore, if "The Surge" was so successful, why are the troops not home now? It's just another stall-tactic.
Submitted by MsLaurel (not verified) on Sat Sep. 27, 2008 2:32 AM PDT.
PS:
To those who are uncomfortable with Obama saying "McCain is right ..." listen to the rest of the sentence, please:
Beginning with "You're right," is a classic argument tactic that allows you to turn your opponents argument against himself. For example: "McCain is right; spending does need to be cut on corporate welfare, on Iraq, on millionaire tax-cuts, on military "white elephants," on "bridges-to-nowhere."
The best analysis of the polls I've seen was over at the TNR web site.
They pointed out that while McCain was judged the winner on four of the seven topics, those weren't the topics that most people care about. Obama scored very high on the economic issues, and since those are the biggest concerns of voters, his wins on those issues carried more weight
Also, Obama did extremely well on themes like "he shares my concerns" while McCain didn't.
As for it being how they "look," don't forget that likely Obama would be 30 pts ahead if he weren't black (or half black).
That being said, I thought the debate rather boring. Hard to believe it changed a lot of minds.
McCain did come off as snarky and looking down on Obama.
I am waiting for Obama to point out that the War in Iraq, borrowing trillions from China, is what has taken the economy over the cliff.
Yes, subprime stuff, too. But never in history have we had a war where no sacrifices were made by the general population..... and, in fact, big tax breaks were given.
Just like the Roman Empire we overextended ourselves and the economy finally crashed.
The debate I saw was not a 'draw' or 'McCain on points' -- it wasn't a blow out by Obama either. McCain seemed yesterday's man -- lots of long, rambling memories of his greatest hits and leaders he has known , followed by a phrase he constantly uses "I've done it, I know how to do it [whatever "it" is in any particular context] and I'll do it as President" --- why no one, Barack, included ever asks him "HOW" he'll do anything is beyond me. This is a guy whose approach to diplomacy is (and I paraphrase because I don't have the direct quote) -- I'll get 'em in a room and make them solve things [duh, who knew it was that easy!].
Barack demonstrated more of a vision for tomorrow, an understanding about how power is more than military power and a desire to restore American power in its various forms. McCain rambled, used lots of anecdotes but they never really seemed applicable to the question.
Not a good night for McCain. Put that together with the obvious contempt for Obama, the coiled, trollish rage and an AWFUL tie that on a cheap, middle class person's tv (ie., mine) really distracted and I think you at worst have a draw for Obama and at best a slight nod in his direction.
The fact that Obama can win with this approach is a lesson to all of us who have a hard time hiding our contempt for wrong-headed, right wingers. Flies with honey is the way to go. Barack never ceases to amaze with his perception. Could civil discourse make a comeback in American politics and backyard shout downs? WOW!
All Obama has to confer is "I will be a good President".
He doesn't even say "I would be a better President than McCain" (he shouldn't say that), because that would set the bar too low. Everything else is secondary to that message, at least at this point in the process.
Obama understands that he has to educate the voters in the middle (on the fences). He is a teacher and he knows how to do it. This is not about beating the enemy, it's about winning hearts and minds.
No one seems to be commenting on the terrible job that Jim Leherer did in moderating that "debate"...I heard another old man (Bob Schieffer) on TDS talking about follow up questions...WHERE WERE THEY...they seemed to be relegated to trying to direct the candidates to engage one another...just awful...
Yeah, I thought the format was terrible. I thought I read somewhere that the candidates were supposed to ask follow-up questions, but I can't be sure.
JL had no control and was nothing more then a lame duck. I would prefer the moderated debates from the primary over this.
