Watching last night’s presidential debate at the jam-packed Montlake Ale House (a horde of DFAer’s pushing us DL regulars into the nooks and crannies), there was little question about who won the contest. Both the boisterous crowd and the CNN dial test audience agreed: it was no ass whooping, but Barack Obama came off as knowledgable, likeable and more in touch with average Americans than the often angry and ornery John McCain. And with this being the debate that focused on McCain’s alleged strong suit, foreign policy, that constitutes a win for Obama.
But afterwards, I stopped off at house filled with angry Irishmen, and the reaction was quite different. Strong Democrats all, they were drowning their sorrow in whiskey at what they saw as a pathetically weak performance by Obama, who failed to fight back against McCain’s frequent attacks. Almost as a chorus they complained that if Obama had said “I agree with Sen. McCain” one more time, they would have thrown a bottle at the TV set (and the Irish don’t waste the contents of bottle lightly).
They went into the debate smelling blood after McCain/Palin’s week of disastrous missteps, and they expected Obama to go in for the kill. He didn’t. And their initial and unanimous post-debate reaction was that this was big win for McCain.
Huh. Had we watched the same debate? So I went online to catch the spin and was fascinated to watch the consensus evolve over the next few hours. The early threads on the liberal blogs more closely matched the angry Irishmen than the cheerful DFAers, with many commenters lamenting the same lack of backbone and aggression, a sentiment echoed by a handful of CW pundits who quickly jumped to set the frame by calling the debate for McCain. But it wasn’t long before this spin got spun around, with McCain’s ornery demeanor, his refusal to even look at Obama, let alone make eye contact, and his failure to mention “the middle class” even once beginning to dominate the conversation.
Then the instant polls and focus group results came in, and the notion of an Obama win quickly took hold amongst a majority of the media commentators. By pretty convincing margins both independent and undecided voters consistently gave the edge to Obama, both in his performance and in his positives. Obama talked about issues and connected with voters, whereas McCain appeared “antagonistic”, even “contemptuous,” and while the latter may play well with McCain’s antagonistic and contemptuous Republican base, the folks in the middle… um… not so much.
I don’t know if Obama’s cool and collected debate demeanor is a strategy or simply who he is, but as much as I would personally like to see our candidate punch back as good as he gets—and better—I think last night’s approach ultimately serves him well. Not because voters don’t want to see their presidents appear strong—they most emphatically do—but Obama, perhaps uniquely, must carefully avoid appearing too strong. If you know what I mean….
Ahem… um… as McCain might phrase it, “the point is“… while we may have come a long way toward fulfulling Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream, white America doesn’t much like its big, black men to appear aggressive or threatening… and in case you hadn’t noticed, Barack Obama is a big, black man.
Oh sure, on the football field or the basketball court such aggression is accepted and even celebrated, but in the political arena the standards are quite different. Yes, in politics, we still like our big, black men to be orderly and loyal, like Colin Powell, or quiet like Justice Thomas… or even a sweet, dumb, gentle giant like that character in The Long Green Mile.
But threatening? No, Obama can’t afford to come off as threatening, let alone contemptuous of an elderly white man like McCain. So as much as I’m with the brawling Irishmen on what I’d personally like to see from our candidate, I understand I’m not the typical swing voter, and nowhere near the mindset of an undecided independent. No, as much as it may pain me, Obama needs to show McCain respect, even when it is totally unreciprocated, if he is to win the hearts, minds and votes of the uncommitted.
He may not have stirred any passions in his base, but I’m guessing more voters than not came away from the debate with a greater sense of comfort in the notion of Obama as commander in chief, and that’s all he needed to achieve last night.
So I’ve scored this one for Obama. And now I’m going sit back and watch to see if my post-debate analysis is supported by the daily tracking polls.
UPDATE:
John Cole at Balloon Juice aptly sums up the dilemma facing McCain over the emerging too contemptuous to make eye contact narrative:
SNL will probably drive the point home in a skit that will become the dominant narrative tonight, and McCain will become boxed in regarding his behavior in the second debate, much as Gore was unable to be as aggressive as he wanted in the second debate (I remember the running joke was that Gore had been medicated for the second debate). And if McCain does not tone down the contempt, it will simply feed the narrative. Or, if we are really lucky, as someone suggested in another thread, McCain will overcompensate and spend the entire time comically and creepily attempting to make eye contact with Obama (think Al Gore walking across the stage to stand next to Bush, and Bush looking at him as if to think “WTF are you doing?”).
This should be terrifying for the McCain campaign for two reasons. First, the base will not understand it. To them, a sneering, contemptuous jerk is a feature, not a bug. When they try to tone down McCain, it will turn off the diehards. Look at the reaction of the base to Palin’s RNC speech- they LOVED that she was, for all intents and purposes, nothing but an asshole the entire speech. They loved the “zingers” that were written for her. The rest of the country recoiled in horror, and Obama raised ten million the next 48 hours.
UPDATE, UPDATE:
I feel like I’m in pretty good company when James Fallows posts a pretty similar analysis:
Obama would have pleased his base better if he had fought back more harshly in those 90 minutes — cutting McCain off, delivering a similarly harsh closing judgment, using comparably hostile body language, and in general acting more like a combative House of Commons debater. Those would have been effective tactics minute by minute.
But Obama either figured out, or instinctively understood, that the real battle was to make himself seem comfortable, reasonable, responsible, well-versed, and in all ways “safe” and non-outsiderish to the audience just making up its mind about him. (And yes, of course, his being a young black man challenging an older white man complicated everything he did and said, which is why his most wittily aggressive debate performance was against another black man, Alan Keyes, in his 2004 Senate race.) The evidence of the polls suggests that he achieved exactly this strategic goal. He was the more “likeable,” the more knowledgeable, the more temperate, etc. Update: though he doesn’t have to say “John is right…” ever again during this campaign.
A good debate.
The strongest, most vocal Obama supporters probably didn’t much like this debate, and the reaction from the Alehouse crowd supports this. These folks are (justifiably) angry, and are looking for blood.
Of course, this debate wasn’t really for them. They already know how they’re going to vote, and nothing less than Senator Obama publicly asking for Iran to wipe out Israel, then endorsing the 9/11 bombers would change their minds.
It also wasn’t for the Republican “faithful”. There’s a different mindset over on that side, so they’re all busy claiming victory because Senator Obama didn’t disagree violently with everything Senator McCain said. (I’m waiting for an Obama surrogate to remind folks that even a stopped clock is right twice a day.)
This was for the undecided, and those folks that would like to vote for Senator Obama, but are still a bit uneasy about him. He’s different. He promises change. Different and change are scary concepts to some folks.
What those folks saw was a person that claims to be willing to work with the opposing party, but wasn’t willing to even look his opponent in the eyes, compared to someone that was willing to acknowledge even his opponent wasn’t wrong all the time.
Yes, the McCain campaign has already mounted an ad saying how Senator Obama “endorsed” Senator McCain. Nobody that wasn’t already committed to vote for Senator McCain will be influenced by it.
But all those independents and leaners saw a well-informed, calm, decisive leader, ready to work with everyone for the good of the country.
And if that isn’t a win for Senator Obama, I don’t know what is.
I would say Obama won (but not by a large margin) just because he didn’t get flustered or uptight like McCain. McCain would barely look at Obama even as Jim Lehrer urged them both to address each other. Obama certainly acted more presidential in his demeanor.
I’m not sure this event changed anyone’s mind. I was watching CNN which had this meter graph with Dems, Reps, and Independents. It was interesting because almost nothing moved the Reps when Obama was talking (they did like his talk about the strength of our troops). The Independents seemed swayed by whatever struck them (and please, if you haven’t made up your mind by now, what is the problem? Is it one issue? There is no perfect candidate.).
But McCain did come off somewhat cranky and Obama started too many sentences off agreeing with him. Obama could have scored some points, when McCain went off on the earmarks Obama allegedly worked for, by pointing how Palin’s Alaska gets more per capita than other places. Between she and Ted Stevens, earmarks rule Alaska.
Can’t wait for Thursday, though. If Biden doesn’t say anything too dopey (he has this tendency to say “literally” when it isn’t), Palin will crash and burn all by herself. I feel like if she hasn’t heard a question in the exact format that she was trained to hear it, that she gets flustered and tends to just go to “maverick” and “ya”. If she says the same 5 sentences she has said for the last month, she’s toast.
Did you do a poll of white america or is this how you view white america?
Like steve would say…
Projection.
What, no thread about kissinger saying obama misstated his position.
“misstated his position” is the politically correct way of saying obama lied.
Of course the liberal media won’t mention this, that doesn’t promote their agenda.
Number of times Sen. McCain referred to Sen. Obama as “Barack”: zero
Number of times Sen. Obama referred to Sen. McCain as “John”: 23
“I think Sen. McCain’s absolutely right … Sen. McCain is absolutely right … He’s absolutely right … Sen. McCain is absolutely right … John, I — you’re absolutely right … Sen. McCain is absolutely right.”
John said thanks Barack.
“I’m not going to set the White House visitors schedule before I’m president of the United States. I don’t even have a seal yet.”
Remember Obama has a seal. If he loses where does he put the “seal”?
“We’ve seen this stubbornness before in this administration — for Obama to cling to a belief that somehow the surge has not succeeded, and failing to acknowledge that he was wrong about the surge is — shows to me that we … need more flexibility in a president of the United States than that.”
“I’m afraid Sen. Obama doesn’t understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy …What he doesn’t understand … I don’t think that Sen. Obama understands … What Sen. Obama doesn’t seem to understand … He doesn’t understand … Sen. Obama still doesn’t quite understand — or doesn’t get it … Sen. Obama’s plan is dangerous for America … I mean, it’s just dangerous. … Again, a little bit of naiveté there … It isn’t just naive; it’s dangerous.”
I keep thinking of Peter Lorre, hunched over and sneering:
no preconditions, no preconditions, no preconditions..
It was creeping us out.
Marvin, Marvin, Marvin. There you go again.
Dr. Kissinger responded to an assertion that Obama did not make.
Here is what Senator Obama said:
Ok, there are the comments of Dr. Kissinger, and the comments of Senator Obama. Verbatim. Please tell me how Senator Obama misstated Dr. Kissinger’s stated opinion.
From the mouth of Dr Henry Kissinger: “Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain.”
@6 Must have only been casually listening.
On a lot of things John McCain says some of the right things. His execution is way off. A better synopsis of each “Senator McCain is absolutely right” moments would be :
Senator McCain says the right things, but does the wrong things.
I don’t think Kissinger did his shuttle diplomacy with any preconditions.
Anywhoo, it’s true. This election won’t be won with the partisans from either side. It’s the fencesitters who need to be convinced.
I don’t think McSame did much to convince those undecided voters that he WON”T be just 4 more years of that same old fiscal crisis and war and fear-mongering bullshit that we’ve put up with for last 8 years.
Not ONE mention of the middle class. America has always been about the middle class.
The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center’s Eric Toder said: “People with taxable income of $32,000 would have a total income greater than that.”
In 2008, single status taxpayers get the standard deduction of $5,450, and the personal exemption of $3,500. So a single taxpayer would need to earn at least $41,500 in total income, while a married couple would need a combined income of at least $83,000.
Again McCain was right.
McCain: Admiral Mullen suggests that Senator Obama’s plan is dangerous for America.
Obama: That’s not the case.
McCain: That’s what …
Obama: What he said was a precipitous…
McCain: That’s what Admiral Mullen said.
Obama: … withdrawal would be dangerous. He did not say that. That’s not true.
Admiral Mullen did say in a Fox News interview that having a time line for withdrawal would be dangerous.
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen on July 20, 2008 said: “I think the consequences could be very dangerous in that regard. I’m convinced at this point in time that coming – making reductions based on conditions on the ground are very important.”
Looks like McCain was right again.
Obama: We are currently spending $10 billion a month in Iraq when they have a $79 billion surplus.
Hmmm…?
Since Iraq just passed a $21 billion supplemental spending bill, (USA Today August 2008), and the Donkey led GAO estimates $38.2 billion to $50.3 billion – Iraqi’s estimated year end $$$ is between $47 billion and $59 billion.
But we know Barack likes to overdramatize and stretch the truth.
On Kissinger
While Dr. Kissinger may want to retract it, he did say very much waht Senator Obama attributed to him and has said the same many times.
If Kissinger wants to argue that the
emperor,pope,president is somehow above the diplmatic standards of a secretary of state, all this doe sis reveal a lot about Kissinger’s part in the elevation .. and fall .. of Nixon from his imperial perch.What I found telling was the lack of any specific suggestion by McCain or Kissinger about WHY this would be usch a terrible thing. McCain at one point ridiculed the idea of Obama sitting down with Ahmadinejad and listening to the usual antisemitic rant. McCain, then asked what would Obama’s reply be? No?
errr ahhh, why would that be so bad?
Oh you GOP trolls. Looking at all the polls after the debate, Obama won over undecideds and independents. Your guy lost. Get over it.
Probably more people watched the debate because of McCain’s stunt to cancel the debate. Bad move for him. I use to like McCain, back in 2000. But he has spent the last 8 years kissing up to Bush and the religious right, who attacked his family. Not only is McCain a phony, his pick of VP and the call for canceling the debate show that he is UNQUALIFIED to be president.
Because of that, I’m off to go volunteer for Obama.
Now don’t get me wrong, I was never going to vote for McCain (at least not the 2008 McCain), but I figured a few months ago that he would be tolerable. At least he was opposed to the religious looneys that have taken over the Republican Party. I was just glad that Huckabee hadn’t won the nomination.
But no more. This guy CANNOT be allowed to become president. So it’s off to volunteer for me.
BTW, I was originally a Richardson supporter, then I voted/ volunteeered for Clinton.
Again using the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, Obama’s “tax” plan only works for 81.3% of homes, not 95%.
Think the kool-aid is flowing last night?
Obama in the debate: “Now, what I’ve said is we should end this war responsibly. We should do it in phases. But in 16 months we should be able to reduce our combat troops, put – provide some relief to military families and our troops and bolster our efforts in Afghanistan so that we can capture and kill bin Laden and crush al Qaeda.”
Obama before the debate: “I will remove one or two brigades a month, and get all of our combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months. The only troops I will keep in Iraq will perform the limited missions of protecting our diplomats and carrying out targeted strikes on al Qaeda. And I will launch the diplomatic and humanitarian initiatives that are so badly needed. Let there be no doubt: I will end this war.
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf....._FINAL.pdf
Remember when McCain said: “Well, I was interested in Senator Obama’s reaction to the Russian aggression against Georgia. His first statement was, “Both sides ought to show restraint.” Again, a little bit of naivete there. He doesn’t understand that Russia committed serious aggression against Georgia.”
On August 8, 2008 Obama said” “Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to
avoid an escalation to full scale war”
McCain: Senator Obama is the chairperson of a committee that oversights NATO, that’s in Afghanistan. To this day he’s never had a hearing. …
Obama: Look, the — I’m very proud of my vice presidential selection, Joe Biden, who’s the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. And as he explains and as John well knows, the issues of Afghanistan, the issues of Iraq, critical issues like that don’t go through my subcommittee because they’re done as a committee as a whole.
Obama is wrong. Obama’s Afghanistan subcommittee does have jurisdiction over NATO. Y’all can look it up on the senate web site on committees.
In fact, I have heard Petraeus refuse to make such a comments. He is a great soldier in OUR tradition and talks about Iraq only in terms of tactical efforts that must be to met strategic goals the President sets.
As for Mullens, he also refused to be baited by Chris Wallace and only talked about a percipitous withdrawai as dangerous.
SeattleJew: I just placed Admiral Mullen’s comments up there. Anything else is someone’s personal conjecture…
John, please try and keep up, this is the information age.
Like I said… Obama lied.
@25 Mhhmm
And I read the Mullens interview with Wallace as well. Petraeus and Mullens are solfiers and very, very committed to the military way. If either one were willign to tell us what shuld be done politically, they would … out of repsect for the law, resign.
FWIW, a very late number of former high ranking officers, including Powell, Sanchez and Zini, have made strong statements against the McCain stand on “victory” becasue they can not do their jobs when victpry itself is undefined.
I wondered why BHO did nto call McCain oin this. My guess is that he (BHO) was concerned with exactly what McCain was not concerned with … keeping these good officers out of politics.
Even Bush has been taught not to put his officers in such a bad position.
@26 Marvin
No. Obama’s comments were accurate. He never claims that Kissinger has endorsed his policies, merely that Kissinger has advocated meeting without conditions .
Of course Kissinger considers the Predicency as an imperial office. So the idea of the Pope/Emperor allowing the barbarian to kiss his ring is , well serious to him.
One of the great thing about Obama is that he does nto envision himself as wearing a crown.
@23 Subcommittees ..
Yes and the Committee, not the subcommitte, decides what the subcommittee needs to do.
Of course Obama, lie
supermanMcCain could flight through the air, landing at the Ctee just in time to provoke some dramaI wasn’t there when he said it so all I have to go on are the reported words of kissinger…
No mention of obama being right.
No mention of his views being compatible with obama.
But he has already designed a presidential seal. No doubt if obama lived in a country where the ruler wore a crown obama would have already designed a new crown.
If Kissinger says it’s a good thing, run the other way.
Marvin
I’ll try again. Read this as slowly as you need to in order to understand all the words.
Dr. Kissinger responded to an allegation that Senator Obama did not make.
Senator Obama said “Senator McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who’s one of his advisers, who, along with five recent secretaries of state, just said that we should meet with Iran — guess what — without precondition.”
You may assume that Senator Obama meant that he, personally, would meet with any world leader directly and without any preparatory talks at lower levels.
But that isn’t what Senator Obama said in the debate.
Personally, I think that our head-of-state should be willing to talk to any other recognized head-of-state directly, but that isn’t what Senator Obama said.
Speaking only for myself, I would say that if the head-of-state of a recognized country is willing to travel to Washington DC, our President should be able to squeeze in a few minutes and even offer him or her a cup of tea, but Senator Obama doesn’t agree with that. He thinks that there should be lower level talks first.
What Senator Obama has (repeatedly) said is that we should require no preconditions before entering into talks with other countries. If Cuba or Iran or North Korea want to talk, we will listen, and state our own positions directly to them. None of this absurdity of relaying messages through the Swiss embassy, and other diplomatic stupidity.
And just so you don’t have to scroll all the way up to my original post, here’s the quote (including the question):
I have entered the 21st century, complete with public statements of national figures recorded for future reference.
Sometimes I wonder if you Republicans have figured out this idea of “videotape”. You seem to keep getting caught by recordings of your own public statements.
@32 It looks like Marvin’s doctor has granted him access to a computer. Still, go easy on him, John, as the hapless shit is still recovering from last month’s rather spectacular breakdown.
FUNDING THE TROOPS…. The McCain campaign probably has a pretty good reason to feel a little panicky this afternoon. The debate didn’t deliver the big win McCain needed, and the campaign is running out of time.
So, McCain, unconcerned about decency or honesty, is doubling down on accusing Barack Obama of not supporting U.S. troops. In a new ad, unveiled this afternoon, the McCain campaign insists, “In the midst of war, Senator Obama voted to cut off funding for our troops.” It concludes that Obama supports “risking lives.”
McCain desperately has to hope voters are fools. Indeed, this came up last night, and Obama explained reality fairly well:
What’s really idiotic about McCain’s attack is that, by his own logic, McCain voted to cut off funding for our troops in the midst of a war. That’s an inescapable conclusion — McCain supported troop funding when he liked the conditions of the spending bill, and opposed troop funding when he didn’t. As it happens, Obama did the exact same thing, only in support of different conditions.
If Obama voted to undermine the troops and “risked lives,” then McCain voted to undermine the troops and “risked lives.” It’s as simple as that.
But McCain is counting on voters not knowing the difference between misleading smears and the facts. It’s been the basis for most of the McCain campaign rhetoric all year — treat voters like idiots, and pray they see the ad without seeing the fact-check of the ad.
Maybe this is why McCain wouldn’t look at Obama last night — McCain is ashamed of the hack he’s become.
Better to be silent than thought a fool.
At the hite House meeting Thursday Bush turned to McCain, who joked, “The longer I am around here, the more I respect seniority.” McCain then turned to Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to speak first.
Boehner was blunt. The plan Paulson laid out would not win the support of the vast majority of House Republicans. It had been improved on the edges, with an oversight board and caps on the compensation of participating executives. But it had to be changed at the core. He did not mention the insurance alternative, but Democrats did. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, pressed Boehner hard, asking him if he really intended to scrap the deal and start again.
No, Boehner replied, he just wanted his members to have a voice. Obama then jumped in to turn the question on his rival: “What do you think of the [insurance] plan, John?” he asked repeatedly. McCain did not answer.
So what do you think the folks in the states where McCain continued to run campaign ads after suspending his campaign thought when they seen the ads. Ahh, that McCain he’s a straight shooter. Or he’s a lying sonofabitch who thinks we are all fools.
Poor Marvin, at a blog that attracts a large amount of ignorant fuickan wingnut trolls, he stands out for his stupidity.
Name Changing Moby Troll@36:
So why does Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid need Republicans for this plan? Donkey have the majorities in both houses. They claim to be leaders. They should lead. They should rally the Donkey and get ‘er done.
Oops… what is their approval rating again? Below GWB? Really?
http://abcnews.go.com/politics.....038;page=1
I’m guessing that obama has flip-flopped since this comment.
That’s the trouble with democrats… They have to track left in the primaries and track right in the general election.
It’s hard to know where a democrat stands on any issue since they say any and everything to get elected.
I see you got suckered into that breakdown thing.
There was a sockpuppet impersonating people.
Too bad you couldn’t tell the difference. I guess that’s what happens when you start to get old.
Say, any more of those goat sex jokes. It’s funny coming from an “adult” over the age of 50.
@40 Glad to see that you’re making some small progress, although I see that you still have deep-seated issues with denial.
Bye the bye, Republicans having sex with animals, sexually abusing little kids, and exhibiting lewd behavior in public isn’t exactly funny. However, troll denial over the matter is absolutely hilarious. The “joke” is on you. Thanks for the many laughs you’ve given us.
Let us know when you’re fully back on your feet. We’ll pick up where we left off prior to your unfortunate, um, illness.
Marvin, he had too much goat sex those weeks so he can’t figger out sockpuppets from the real person.
@42 “Waaaa”
Is that all you’ve got?
What ever happened to Oprah? She found out
Obama is not even qualified to run a bake sale.
As an Irish American, I stopped reading after the first few paragraphs.
Fuck off. It’s not OK to be racist against folks who look like you or who don’t fight back.
You just tune interested readers out.
Another great article about the debate, Goldy: http://ta-nehisicoates.theatla.....rs_day.php
Waiting for the VP debates. Palin is terrible at answering questions when there isn’t a teleprompter in front of her. It’s gotten so bad that there’s even a Sarah Palin Quote Generator now:
http://palinquotes.awardspace.com/
Marvin (at 3:24 PM)
Yes, in the early Democratic debates, Senator Obama did say that he would meet with other heads-of-state, and his position in the debate was somewhat changed from that.
I was rather disappointed, but I understand that as he spoke to his advisors over the many months, he became convinced that preparatory talks would be important if those meetings were to be productive.
But he has made that change in his position clear, and that is not the point he made in the debate. We both know that.
Personally, I would hope that if either of the Castro brothers, or President Ahmadinejad or any other head-of-state asked to meet with the President, that he would have the courtesy to agree, even in cases where we have serious disagreements with them or their countries.
Essentially, if having a cup of tea with even the most vile, disagreeable and obnoxious individual on the planet can reduce international tensions, then it’s worth it, and even if it doesn’t work, well, tea is cheap, and we will have shown that we tried.
Has Senator Obama been willing to listen to advisers and refine and modify positions over the last year? Yes. Will he continue to do so? I sure hope so. We’ve had eight years of someone that wasn’t willing to listen to anyone that didn’t agree with him 100%.
It hasn’t worked out that well.