"The Homework Ate My Dog" -- Obligatory Post-Debate Diary #s 12 & 35

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 10:00


This debate was Obama's whole campaign in miniature: morally ambiguous, a slew of missed opportunities for devastating blows, and a fundamental lack of a well-crafted plan, but a good-enough strategic posture smoothly executed to pull out a tie, which is all he really needed at this point in time.

As for content--coming from both sides--I think political uber-sage Sean Penn nailed it:

The result is another frustrating piece of American media that is at once far too polite, and at the same time, dismissive of an American public's need to know anything beyond jingoistic self-aggrandizement.

Boy howdy!

And Obama's missed opportunities?  Descending from the Apollonian highland realm of truth and beauty to the lowlands of mere strategy, here are just a few:

Paul Rosenberg :: "The Homework Ate My Dog" -- Obligatory Post-Debate Diary #s 12 & 35
(1) McCain calls Pakistan a "failed state" at the time that Pervez Musharraf took over.  What!?!?!?!  

(2) McCain rags on "government health care."  Obama retort: Millions of Americans your age are very happy with their government health care.  It's called Medicare, and when the Democrats passed in the 1960s, it cut poverty for the elderly in half in just a few years.  (How's that for bringing up the age issue without bringing up the age issue?)

(3) McCain taunt's Obama on his definition of "rich."  Obama does a Jeff Foxworthy: You might be a rich man if... you own so many houses that you lose count!  (Of course, he's got to deliver this with a sheepish grin, shaking his head as if to say, "I can't believe he asked me that!")

(4) And, of course, the biggest missed opportunity of all, as pointed out by Mark Matson in an earlier comment:

I really wanted Obama to close by repeating McCain's "just doesn't understand" line.  Something like:
    Senator McCain has repeated several times that I "just don't understand". Make no mistake, this isn't just a tactic, but really how McCain thinks. Anytime anyone disagrees with him, McCain believes they just don't understand. Does that sound familiar? Haven't we've had enough of those who always believe they always know best and won't take opposing views into account? Can America really survive eight more years of this belligerent attitude?

Talk about a strong close!

On Pacifica Radio's national coverage, co-anchored by KPFK's Ian Masters and Sonali Kolhatkar, Drew Weston (The Political Brain) cited McCain's repetition of this line as the story that McCain was trying to tell about Obama, and faulted Obama for failing to refute it.  His overall feeling was that the debate was pretty boring--and I agree--but that McCain's repeated restatement of this claim created the only real narrative of the debate, and gave him a slight edge.  I definitely noticed it during the debate, and found it extremely annoying that Obama didn't answer it.

While others have argued that it was self-evidently annoying, and thus self-defeating, I've always believed that in a political debate you have to actively make these sorts of arguments yourself--particularly if you're a Democrat--to demonstrate that not only is the other guy a jerk, but that you're totally unfazed by him, anyway.

What Mark suggests, however, is even better, as it really draws a core lesson from this behavior, and identifies McCain with Bush as perpetrators of this attitude, while identifying Obama with us, the American people, all of whom have been subjected to this imperious arrogance.

I firmly believe that if Obama had done what Mark proposed, that would have been the election right there.  It would have been the dominant subject of post-debate discussion all weekend long, and would become deeply embedded in the CW for the rest of the campaign.

But, even though that didn't happen, it seems that a consensus is forming that Obama won the debate, with the best explanation being simply that McCain tried to intimidate Obama--and failed.  The polls and pundits both agree, and McCain's recent spate of annoying antics have surely not helped him in this regard.  There are still a few die-hard McCainiacs in the press, but many former fans are simply shaking their heads in disbelief, and Obama is the clear beneficiary of the unlikely disillusionment.

Sa-rah! Sa-rah! Sa-rah!

First her nomination.  And now her thunderous absence.  They say it all about McCain's fall.

Biden was all over attacking McCain.  And where was McCain's pit bull?

Another sad case of "the homework at my dog."

And the clock is ticking on the VP debate, like a grandfather clock in a house of doom.

Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
"The Homework Ate My Dog" -- Obligatory Post-Debate Diary #s 12 & 35 | 108 comments
You know.... (4.00 / 6)
...it's really easy to figure out good comebacks the next morning. It's a little harder to do it up on that stage.

These debates are not for us. They aren't aimed at us. Obama really only had one hurdle, which was to make the uninformed, independent voters comfortable with the idea of him being their President. He succeeded in that.

Not Exactly (4.00 / 2)
First off, it's not the next morning.  I wrote this last night, and mostly the comebacks occured to me in real time.

Second, I don't expect Obama to get all the comebacks.  I just gave a few example.  Of all the high hanging curveballs, he only had to hit two or three to have a monster night.

Third, this is not some super skill I'm talking about, especially since some of the openings were predictable.  You prepare yourself for 10 or 12 likely ones, and get two of them, you have yourself a very good night.  The one that Mark pointed out was one of them, and the response he crafted was simply superb.

Fourth, it's simply not true that Obama only had one hurdle.  No halfway decent strategic thinker takes that approach.  You have a set of goals.  That was the minimal hurdle for calling the debate a "success."

But essentially ending the campaign would mean that Obama could concentrate on really building his mandate, helping to get his Senate majority to 60 votes (without Lieberman), and laying the groundwork for his crucial first 100 days.  Not wanting any of that is tantamount to not really being serious about governing.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
While I share (4.00 / 8)
Your frustration to the point have having spent a good deal of the debate yelling at the television, I think that one thing that Obama is doing is navigating the issue of subtle racism. You know, the whole "uppity" thing.  While most of white America would like to deny that this is an issue, indication is that it could have an impact as large as 5%.  Unfortunately, the subtlety of racism requires a subtle approach. Obama cannot address this directly.  
[ Parent ]
Agree (4.00 / 4)
Obama has to be cautious in not coming off as the "angry black man" who is attacking the little old white guy.

He did well in avoiding this trap while still nailing McCain on being "wrong on Iraq" and confronting McCain on a number of his dishonest or reckless moves: McCain's mistake in saying he wouldn't meet with Spain's leader, McCain's bomb, bomb Iran song, McCain's blatant lie about Obama's tax plan, McCain's hatchett proposal to deal with the budget, McCain's overblown use of earmarks (18m vs. the 400 billion dollar give away to the wealthiest, etc).

[ Parent ]
I think that's exactly right (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Nonsense. (0.00 / 0)
White Americans cheered for Mohammed Ali when he beat up on white men, and that was a long time ago. They cheered for Michael Jordan.

The point is to do it artfully. Everyone identifies with a winner.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
ps (4.00 / 1)
Did you not see "8 Mile?"

Remember how, at the end, the black audience cheers the white Rabbit as he eviscerates his black opponent?

To understand why, read Sun Tzu.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
You do have to admit though... (0.00 / 0)
Its a lot harder to come up with comebacks when you are in the pressure of the situation vs someone on the sidelines watching... I came up with a few myself...I'm not sure how easy it would have been if I was on stage in front of a national audience with my campaign's fate in a forum not known to be one of my strongest.

That being said, I think they need to study this footage and have some prepared responses for McCain if he hits that again.

one point though that you may disagree with...

The Obama is naive and doesn't understand narrative isn't exactly a new one.   Hillary and McCain have hit him with it for 2 years now.   I'm not so sure its a narrative that will cause issues since its already out there...  I'd say the footage of Obama calling McCain wrong on the war, etc will be the big one coming out of this.

But I agree... I wish he HAD been able to hit those comebacks... I just don't think its as easy as you do Paul.   I'd wonder if YOU or I could do it in the moment IF those additional stressors are there.

[ Parent ]
That's why, like Paul said (0.00 / 0)
you prepare them ahead of time.

You know McCain is going to bring up the troops. So prepare a "support the troops" zinger in advance. You know he's going to have to say something about the economy, etc. You lay out the traps on the paths you know he has to take.

It's called strategy.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Obama did miss a LOT of openings to blast McCain! (4.00 / 1)
A. This crisis is the perfect opportunity to utterly discredit the conservative "free market" fetishism of the last 28 years. Free markets just got us into this mess.

From the NYT just this morning, if further proof were needed:

The chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, a longtime proponent of deregulation, acknowledged on Friday that failures in a voluntary supervision program for Wall Street's largest investment banks had contributed to the global financial crisis, and he abruptly shut the program down.

Business regulating itself was always an insanely stupid idea. It's like expecting NFL teams to referee themselves on Sunday. What kind of chaos would that cause?

Here McCain is having supported every significant move to deregulate markets over the last 10 years and with an advisor in Phil Graham who wrote the bill that repealed the Glass-Steagall act -- just before his wife switched from the board of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission to the Enron board pocketing a cool million in cash and he retired to rake in big $ as well.

B. Biden managed to point out in 30 seconds in the post debate reaction that the "surge" was never supposed to be an end in itself, but rather to provide a "breathing space" for the Iraqis to come together. Well, they haven't. NO oil revenue sharing agreement, no coalition government to bring all the parties together, etc.

So, by any realistic measure the entire purpose of the surge has FAILED. Biden managed to make that point, but in 90 minutes Obama never mentioned it.

C. McCain is incredibly vulnerable for calling for "why not 50 years, why not 100?" of occupation in Iraq. He keeps trying to twist his words and claim he's talking about a PEACEFUL occupation. Well so what? Even if you granted his absurd premise that the Iraqis will ever stop fighting us as long as we're there, nobody outside John McCain is calling for a permanent occupation.

Obama could have pointed out that:

1. The Iraqi people want us out of there as proven by numerous opinion polls.
2. The Iraqi government of Maliki has called for a withdrawal timetable.
3. Even President Bush had to agree to "time horizons" which comes down to the same thing and utterly undercuts McCain's argument -- which he repeated last night --- that merely to name timetables is somehow to court "defeat."

So, those were HUGE areas of potential attack that Obama just passed up.

Supporters will say he won anyway. He was just trying to look Presidential to low-information swing-voters, and didn't want to overload them with too much information.

But, the entire debate was filled with minutia about places like Georgia and Kazahkstan that few Americans have ever heard of and know less about. McCain went off on a tangent about the rulers of several small Asian states. Nobody commented that few Americans knew what he was talking about other than to say "I've been to these places."

I think Biden will do a better job of defending Obama and attacking McCain's gaping weaknesses than Obama did himself.

I suppose he was like a pitcher with a 5 run lead in the 7th inning who only wants to get the ball over the plate. It was almost like we could see him saying to himself "don't get fancy, you've got the lead, don't blow it! Don't walk anybody. Just throw strikes and if they hit it, let the fielders make a play."

That might work, but it doesn't give you much actual mandate to really change anything when you take office to say endlessly "I agree with John."  

[ Parent ]
Report from the field (0.00 / 0)
I have been sitting out in our community marketplace in a conservative suburb in a swing state managing Obama canvassing teams most of today, and I have to say I disagree.  The buzz coming from the other tables and benches is that McCain was angry and disrespectful and that his unwillingness to look Obama in the eye showed bad character.  This is from a generally conservative population (even the Dems here are conservative), but even more importantly this is coming from a LOT of people in the 50-70 age bracket.

I personally would have preferred a few more punches, but I think Obama had a plan, executed it, and knew what he was doing.

sPh

[ Parent ]
So??? (4.00 / 1)
Like so many other comments, this totally misses the point I'm making.  What you're reporting is a nice day-after response.  it's not a fundamental shift in the terms of debate that brings Obama a commanding victory with a working majority in both houses to not just pass something, but to fundamentally shift direction away from 30 years of failed conservative leadership.

In short: He won the checkers game.  Wonderful.  But he wasn't even playing in the chess match.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Watching Obama is sort of like watching a baseball team (0.00 / 0)
try to finesse and squeeze out a run at a time, via scrappy singles, bunts, sacrifices, stealing bases, etc., rather that swing for the fences and go for big innings. There's a certain art to it, but for most people it's not very satisfying to watch. One wants to see Obama swing for the fences and just destroy McCain and finally take command of the political dynamic, not just for himself but for Dems, but this is clearly not his approach. He's going for singles and trying to score a run at a time, slowly but surely, squandering opportunities to make the safe play over and over. It's been working so far, but not the power game that we've all wanted to see.

And I think you have it reversed about chess and checkers. I think that he is playing chess, but not the sort of intimidating chess that many of us want to see him play. More of a slow and thoughtful style with no obvious game changing moves. It's really McCain who's playing checkers, a very aggressive game of checkers, but still checkers. I'm actually with you on my wish that Obama brought some more heat to his game--whatever it is--but this is his style and strategy, and it's not likely that he's going to change it at this point. Or, perhaps he's just waiting for the right time to come out swinging, for the week or two before the election, rather than peaking too soon and giving McCain a chance to come back one last time.

I don't know. Considering who he is and where he was several years ago, the fact that he's beating someone like McCain does say something about his political skills. But I agree that he should be more aggressive, not just to seal the election, but to set up an effective governing stance by coming across as dominant and ready to implement serious reform. But that doesn't seem to be his style, and he's going to do what he's going to do.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Baseball, Checkers And Chess (0.00 / 0)
Actually, in terms of baseball, my thought was always "line drive" rather than "long ball."  When they throw a hanging curve, just concentrate on smacking it good with solid contact.  Concentrate on that, and the home runs will come when everything clicks.  Meanwhile, you hit run-scoring singles and doubles out the wazoo.  In short, I'm not asking him to be Hank Aaron.  Rod Carew will do just fine, thank you.

In terms of checkers and chess, here's the thing:  At the level of campaign strategy and candidate style, I totally get that McCain is the checker-playing fool, while Obama is playing chess.  But the level of campaign strategy and candidate style is itself checkers compared to the long-term level of hegemonic struggle, the chess game which Obama and his handlers seem utterly oblivious to.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
why would you be involved in politics and then recuse yourself from caring about what people said (4.00 / 1)
when they heap praise on war criminals, bull$hit about the rest of the world, pretend that imperialism doesn't exist, allow McCain to get away with saying he's a reformer when he was part of the Keating 5, I get MAD.  And you SHOULD to.  It's our RIGHT.  We're part of this country no?  Or else what's the point of bothering?
[ Parent ]
Because wen're not the majority (4.00 / 3)
Most voters don't go around saying Bush is a war criminal or that the US is imperialist.  And I'll bet most voters are turned off by that kind of talk, even if they kinda-sorta agree with some of the sentiment.

It would have been foolhardy to go the red meat route last night, only to lose undecideds.  That's what McCain did, and it cost him dearly.

[ Parent ]
right (4.00 / 1)
so what makes you think i'm saying he should say that?  I understand the difference between tactics, strategies, and principles.  But he could have said more than he did.  For example, the war criminal I was referring to was Kissinger, against whom there is such a strong case that, I believe, he consults his lawyer every time he leaves the country.  Would you be able to tell that based on the praise that the OPPOSITION candidate heaped on him?  It's obscene.

what i'm saying is that i'm allowed to be pissed off and think that jingoistic bull$hit is what it is.  How much longer am i expected to make excuses for my politicians while they throw away my future (quite literallly)?  I'm doing my share by not outrightly advocating for a rejection of this bullshit by supporting a third party, because, rightly or wrongly, I am not that radical yet.  but at some point, hopefully soon, I'm outta here if they continue this.  It's not even that I'm asking them to tell the truth - I'm just asking the ones who care to more a bit more quickly towards it.

[ Parent ]
Obama will NEVER take on the establishment head-on (4.00 / 3)
Never has, never will. Not just because, as a black man, it would be vastly harder for him to do that effectively, but because it just isn't his style. FISA fully telegraphed what his political approach is during crunch time. The same with his present votes. He sidesteps big conflicts, waits for them to subside, and then does his finesse thing. That didn't happen with FISA, of course, but it did happen in the IL senate, and in some ways in the US senate (ethics reform).

The Obama that we want to see doesn't exist and likely never will. He is simply not a pit bull style of politician, taking on the system. He wants to become the system, and reform it from inside. The best that we can hope for is that progressive Democratic leaders emerge, in congress and elsewhere, who ARE pit bulls and who WILL fight the system head-on, and either push Obama to be more aggressive in his policies, or effectively (if not intentionally) play the role of bad cop to Obama's good cop, presenting a one-two punch to the GOP and power establishment, and the choice between dealing with some pain in the ass loudmouth Dems, and the more conciliatory "nice guy" Obama. Done right, this can achieve a lot of good. But it remains to be seen whether Obama is willing to play even this game, or if he's looking to do this all by himself, top-down. That would be a terrible and stupid  mistake.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
i don't expect him to take on the powers that be (4.00 / 1)
though it would be great.  but stand up for himself?  once?  call out mccain on completely and total bullshit?  once?  that's politics, not necessarily tied to ideology.
[ Parent ]
He's inching his way there (4.00 / 2)
But I agree that he's not there yet. Whether it's a natural inclination to be non-confrontational (although he certainly has no problem doing this in his stump speeches), a fear of being labelled and seen as an "angry black man", or a strategic decision to not do this directly, I don't know (probably some of all three, and perhaps other reasons as well).

But it is frustrating, I agree.

Although, I did like how he listed all the things that McCain was wrong on at one point in the debate, as McCain refused to look him in the eye as he was being accused of all these things. That was pretty in your face confrontational. Along with Obama's actually looking at McCain when he spoke last night. I liked that. But I wish he was a bit more like this consistently, and not just sporadically. He's got the old guy on the ropes, and should just put him away once and for all. Maybe he's just saving it for the last week or two, when it will be much harder for McCain to recover. Or maybe he's just killing him with a thousand paper cuts.

I'm guessing that this will be his core strategy for dealing with the GOP if he wins. First, propose "bipartisan" solutions that all can agree on (but which are hopefully skewed heavily in a progressive direction). Then, when the Repubs inevitably refuse to come on board, hack away at them by making them seem like uncooperative obstructionists, winning the public to his (and our) side, but without having to take them on directly or be too confrontational. I.e. the passive-aggressive approach, which he's so good at (and which totally frustrated the Clinton campaign). It worked for Reagan. Maybe Obama thinks that it can work for us.

We'll see.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
well, if he keeps jumping halfway to the door (4.00 / 1)
maybe the 2012 or 2016 progressive challenger to his administration will get through it :)
[ Parent ]
Zeno's Paradox, Obama edition? (0.00 / 0)
You do realize that we're NEVER going to get entirely there, not next year, not in 5 years, not in 500 years. Progressive goals are asymptotic (if you do a regression on their cyclical nature)--you keep getting closer, but you never quite get there. But I think that Obama's our best bet at getting closer right now. Right now, it's a binary choice--Obama or Old Yeller. If he wins, it goes back to the old strum und drang of party politics. But not until then. (Well, some of us will keep on sniping when called for, but only spasmodically, and reasonably quietly.)

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
you're missing one thing (0.00 / 0)
the 'progressive' mentality will produce goals that are asymptotic, but supporting policies construed at a given point in time as 'progressive' doesn't demonstrate that one has the above.  I guess politics works when those two groups being able to interact effectively.

That's what I'm looking for.  Not finding it, frequently :)

And of course I agree that Obama is better than McCain.  But I'm pusing my four to eight year asymptotes out as I get more confident in Obama's possibility of winning.

[ Parent ]
In fact, (4.00 / 1)
we are the majority.

There's a post elsewhere on OpenLeft just today that makes that point nicely. Our views are the normal, mainstream ones, it's only the beating we have been receiving from the Cons for a few decades now that has some of us cowed.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Many values, yes (0.00 / 0)
It does not follow that all of our rhetoric is rhetoric that the average person shares or understands, nor does it follow that all of our values are values that most people share.

Do you really think that, if you stand up in a presidential debate and boldly decry Kissinger as a war criminal, the average undecided voter is going to agree with it and find that characterization appealing, much less say "hell, yeah"?

We so frequently criticize Obama for taking too long to explain things.  You'd have to go over Kissinger's history in detail to make that case.  It simply isn't a made-for-presidential-debate discussion that would win Obama anything.

[ Parent ]
Have you seen this? (4.00 / 1)

http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2...

Kung Fu claims that the key to getting an audience to connect with you is by triangulating them against someone else, real or imagined. Republicans do this beautifully and probably based on instinct alone. Why do you think they have invested so much time and money creating the Evil Liberal stereotype?

But we can do it, too, and in fact we are far more suited to it because we really are the normals.

All Obama (or any other Liberal) has to do is say, basically, "Look at that asshole over there. You and me aren't like that, are we? No, we're normal, alright. What an asshole."

And when you're up against someone like McCain or Palin . . .


Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
More than that (4.00 / 3)
Presidential debates aren't like academic ones, just as the primaries weren't won on the popular vote.

You aim for the undecided voter.  This debate wasn't for Paul Rosenberg; it was for people who didn't yet think they could vote for Obama (or were unsure).

So, I'm sorry that he wasn't wonky enough, or that he let technicalities slip by, or that he didn't shred McCain verbally.  Affect mattered even more than substance, and that's why Obama won last night.

This was a comparison shopping opportunity for the folks who pick American Idol.  And you know what?  Obama's approach was pretty smart, given that.

[ Parent ]
Yeah (0.00 / 0)
I thought it was so fascinating to watch the opinion lines underneath CNN's screen.  I know that negative attacks are supposed to work and all, but pretty much any time either candidate was sharp with his opponent, the lines dipped down.  When they were talking coherently about their plans and ideas, the lines tended to go up.

Doesn't exactly match what we know about issue/identity voting, but at least in the moment, that's what people's response seemed to be ...

Republicans can't fix our country; they're too busy saddlebacking.

[ Parent ]
The "definition of rich" thing was weird. (0.00 / 0)
At the time it happened, I just thought it was completely bizarre that McCain would completely expose himself to being slammed for his houses or for $5 million or whatever ...

... but my more cynical side took over -- I think it's completely possible that McCain had some zinger ready for when Obama took the bait, that he WANTED him to take the bait so he could deliver it.

Or else he's just really, really stupid.  That's quite likely also.

Republicans can't fix our country; they're too busy saddlebacking.

[ Parent ]
In less than five minutes (4.00 / 1)
in an interview after the debate, Biden was able to more accurately articulate a difference than Obama was able to pull off in over 90 minutes.
Fair... (0.00 / 0)
I would say all of us agree Biden is much better at debating and short concise sound bite answers than Obama is.   Obama is an orator... Biden is a debator.
[ Parent ]
Palin lost big tonight as well (4.00 / 7)
Someone in the press (I think Jon Alter) was quoted as saying that the debate last night set a standard that Palin obviously won't be able to meet.

Thinking about it a little more, it occurred to me that what Biden was doing last night, and has been doing in many TV appearances and interviews--being a surrogate/attack dog for the ticket--is almost better preparation for the VP debate than any actual "debate prep" could be (which Palin is obviously holed up somewhere cramming for).  

Because the VP debate is less a "debate" between people trying to get the best of each other as it is a high (the highest, actually) level clash between surrogates arguing on behalf of their presidential candidates.  It won't be "Biden vs. Palin" as much as it will be "Biden making the case for Obama/against McCain vs. Palin making the case for McCain/against Obama."

exactly! (0.00 / 0)
Good stuff, Haggai. Joe can make the case, Palin can try ... I like our chances on that contest to say the least.
[ Parent ]
VP Debate (0.00 / 0)
I always thought the VP debate was a little bit juvenile, along the lines of "my dad's better than your dad."  Never understood what purpose it served.  All about zingers.
[ Parent ]
Yeah... (4.00 / 1)
But it did give us one of my favorite political lines from Lloyd Bensen in 1988.
[ Parent ]
Theme and Tactic (4.00 / 5)
I think the list above is a good start.  However, i think there's an even deeper point to make which has the advantage of not only being true, but also being a good debate tactic.  

The strategy for the Republicans to control the debate for (at least) the last 7 years has been to distract the public in general from the big issues by bringing up small, but emotionl issues to dominate the conversation with.  "Don't worry about those hundreds of billions in tax cuts for the rich, worry about same-sex marriage," etc.  And this is a tactic that McCain is riding for all it's worth.

A key case in point, Obama wants to talk about the hundreds of billions in tax policy, and McCain talks about 20 Billion in earmarks.  And while it's no doubt true that there are abuses of this system, and these abuses resonate with voters, it's really a tactic to distract voters from mroe important issues.

And Obama needs to call McCain out on this explicitly. It's not enough for him to point this out passively " your right that we need to worry about abuses of the system, but it's even more important for us to look at the hundreds of billions in tax cuts for the richest..."  When obama takes this approach, it allows McCain to return to how abusive and immoral the earmarks are.

Instead Obama should call McCain out by saying " of course there are abuses of this earmark system.  But the reason why you are talking about this issue is that you DON'T want to talk about ..."  and then connect this tactic to the bush administration: " this is the same way that George Bush fooled the country into accepting a Trillion in tax cuts for the wealthy by ..."

By directly accussing McCain of distracting from the main issues at hand, it forces McCain to either explain why the minor issues he is talking about are MORE important than the ones Obama is or re-enforce the theme that he (and the Republicans) are bamboozling the voters.

Obama should hammer this theme home multiple times in each debate as McCain brings up some minor right-wing anectdote that is designed to counter a larger, hard-to-deny reality

Good Point (4.00 / 2)
I have to admit, I was so disappointed when I wrote this last night that I didn't have the heart to get into this.  Sean Penn's remarks really said it all for me, and Chris Hedges on Pacifica said much the same thing.

The foreign policy "debate" was almost non-existent, IMHO, as neither candidate is actually talking about the real key to our security, which is creating real security for everyone in the world.  The Middle East is the hot-button area, so Penn's pointing out the absence of the Palestinians from the debate (which I didn't quote) and Hedges' pointing out the futility of trying to "win" in Afghanistan (no outside force in history has ever done that) are absolutely crucial to consider if we want to move toward a policy that even remotely might work.

But, on the domestic front, it was not nearly so bleak, and you're absolutely right that Obama should have pulled McCain onto the carpet.  As McCain is so fond of chortling, he has a record, after all, and it's way past time that he be held accountable for it.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
I was just dying for Obama to say something like (4.00 / 1)
"Well, Dick Cheney's got a record and lots of experience too", to demolish the experience over judgement meme. Alas, it would have been too provocative for the generally mild-mannered Obama. He's playing a finesse game, where we want him to just land some hard punches and just finish off the old fool. Looks like it's working, in terms of winning the election. But it just doesn't feel as satisfying, or, more importantly, "right", in the longer-term, destroy the GOP so that we can govern effectively, sense. Not unlike your point about Reid above.

It's like, WTF are you guys waiting for? Just finish them off already!

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
obama's not going to do it (4.00 / 1)
he's going to win; start thinking of a progressive challenger for 2012 (preferably within the democratic party, but otherwise a third party candidate).  also get your protest shoes ready and your congresspeople's phone numbers on your speeddial.  It's going to be a long four years unless progressives start DEMANDING that the politicians acting in their names "liberal" "left" etc. - actually act like it.  Or get the f@#k out of the way.

The one thing I'll say for Obama is that he's honest about it at least - even if only to serve his own interests.  When McCain called him a liberal, he said that he was being portrayed as one just because he was opposing Bush.  Maybe it was a debating tactic, but it was true.  he's a pragmatic centrist who hopefully has some deep personal sympathies for people who are suffering - that's the best we're going to do right now, so let him get elected, but even before that, start pushing him to do things that are in his interests and progressive also.

Some places to start here.

[ Parent ]
yikes... (4.00 / 1)
he's not even elected yet and you want to burn him at the stake.  Talk about a short honeymoon - you're scheming a divorce before the wedding ceremony.

Obama is not an idealogue - he's a pragmatic liberal.  If you make a good enough argument for a progressive cause, Obama will not only listen to it but he will already be leaning in your direction.   What more do you think you are going to get out of someone who has to earn 65,000,000 votes and actually get positive things done?  

[ Parent ]
which directiion is that? (4.00 / 2)
the bombing pakistan direction?  the "missile shield is a good idea" direction?  the "i won't put up a fight for populist measures in the bailout bill" direction?

I'm not burning him at the stake - I'm  just pi$$ed the same way I'm pissed at every other "pragmatic liberal" that is more interested in being pragmatic than liberal.  My action is to try to put pressure on him now because this bailout could restrict the scope of action for protecting social security etc or, if it doesn't happen, could thoroughly damage the economy.  He's not doing a good enough job.

[ Parent ]
What is "pragmatic" about the missile shield? (4.00 / 1)
Which every scientist knows is a boondoggle for the MIC.
[ Parent ]
Methinks That's Why God Invented Quote Marks (0.00 / 0)
But I'll have to get a quote from Her to confirm.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
i.e. path of least resistance in electoral politics (4.00 / 1)
keep the status quo going even when someone else is quite deliberately trying to alter it radically.  Path of least resistance, in two senses.
[ Parent ]
I think it was Mark Twain (4.00 / 2)
who said "it's the path of least resistance that makes both men and rivers crooked."

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
What I've learned from the internet (4.00 / 2)
is that "pragmatic" is just a fancy way to say "please don't hit me." And it's about equally effective, too.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
The one I thought Obama really missed (4.00 / 3)
And I was thinking this as it was happening, so it's not like this was the product of hindsight.

When McCain spoke early on about holding people responsible - the odd Eisenhower at D-Day anecdote, calling for Chris Cox's head - Obama should have gone for the jugular. "John, you've been there for 26 years and voted for every single one of these financial deregulation bills. If we're going to hold someone responsible tonight, shouldn't it be you?!"

Or something to that effect.

I think Obama did not realize this was a debate - an adversarial conversation between two people. Maybe what Obama needs at his next debate prep are some good trial attorneys.

Agreed (4.00 / 2)
Obama has a real problem with confrontation, and confrontation is an inherent part of a political debate.

So, to soften it a bit for him, he could have said, "You know John, it pains me to say this, but you've been there for 26 years..."

I don't have a problem with that sort of softening.  But get to the crucial point, dammit!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
a "problem" with confrontation? (0.00 / 0)
That is a loaded comment.

He is choosing not to confront.  He has his style.  His style is not your style.

So many political experts, so few candidates....  

[ Parent ]
yeah and he's not 10 points up in the polls (4.00 / 2)
so maybe a little more confrontation against a politician who claims to be a reformer but was part of the keating five and whose national security adviser is a war criminal and who doesn't understand economics but just disrupted a bill because it wasn't deregulatory enough (or beause he wasn't getting credit).

There's a point to confrontation - and when Obama engaged in it it was quite clearly effective.  If you don't call out bullshit - in one style or another - it becomes truth.

[ Parent ]
If You Don't Confront Problems, You Don't Solve Them (0.00 / 0)
Obama has already shown on numerous occassions that he doesn't have a problem with confrontation and criticism.  It's not his preferred style, but he's capable of it, and he's competent at it.

So all the superficial narratives to the contrary can just be set aside.  I know that he's not comfortable being in that mode for long stretches, and I wasn't calling on him to be so.  I just want him to make a few brief moments count.  Heck, although I wanted more, it would have been enough just to execute Mark's suggestion at the end.  That alone would have clearly cinched the debate for Obama, and set the tone for the rest of the campaign.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I don't have any problem with Obama doing it in his own style.  He can say "It pains me to say this" if he wants to.  I'm fine with that. But say it.


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Elections are for accountability (4.00 / 2)
The killer response would've been to say 'We do need to hold those responsible for this mess accountable -- that's what elections are for. That's what this election is about. Are we going to hold these people accountable for this mess and make a change or are we going to give them another four years of the same bad policies?'

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans
[ Parent ]
But Obama did answer McCain's accusation of... (4.00 / 2)
'not understanding' by offering up information by the boatload and displaying that he has a keen understanding of what's going on in the world.

Obama undoubtedly proved McCain wrong on that point.

A direct, machismo hit is not always the most effective way to disprove someone.

McCain's primary strategy was to show his experience trumps Obama's judgment. It failed. In fact, McCain's nasty demeanor and insults hurt his performance.  

Show & Tell (0.00 / 0)
It's not enough to show that McCain's accusation is bogus.  You have to tell people as well.  Showing is more powerful, in an ultimate sense, but telling frames what you've shown people.  If you don't frame it properly, they can see it all, but not necessarily absorb it.

There's an old speech-giving formula that's relevant here: First you tell 'em what you're going to tell 'em.  Then you tell 'em.  Then you tell 'em what you've told 'em.

In this case, there was only a slight variation: First you tell 'em what you're going to show 'em.  Then you show 'em.  Then you tell 'em what you've showed 'em.

The very best thing Obama could have done would have been to talk about McCain's attack before it was delivered, and told folks to listen carefully to his own responses, and decide for themselves if they were listening to someone who didn't know what he was talking about, decide for themselves if McCain was being fair or honest in his personal attacks.  That sort of setup would have really disrupted McCain's game plan.



"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
That's a classic! (4.00 / 1)
What does Sun Tzu call it? "Rouse your enemy and learn the principle of his action?"

In McCain's case, we already know the principles of his action. He has a track record and a set of prescribed talking points.

So you say, "my opponent is about to say x," and then what can he do? If he says "x" he just made your point for you. If he says "not-x" you've knocked him off his well-worn paths, into hostile territory where he becomes even easier to take apart.

Didn't anyone around here watch "8 Mile?"  

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
I beg to differ (4.00 / 4)
I too was frustrated w/ Obama not making the minced meat of McCain that he clearly could have made of him. His performance was reminiscent of Kerry's four years ago. But I changed my mind when I saw the snap polls and focus group reports coming out after the debate. Obama won over moderates and independents because he had more poise. McCain was edgy in a way people didn't like, and Obama was probably well advised not to go there. I think he knew exactly what he was doing. And that's been my general impression with the Obama campaign. A year ago people were howling at them for treading water, but then it turned out they managed to peak at just the right time, and had they peaked earlier they might have faced the fate of the Dean campaign. In battling Hill & Bill and their moneybags, they had a strategy of collecting all the small states that they could easily pick up thanks to their volunteer and small donor power, and Hillary's people didn't figure out what the heck was going on until it was too late. And when pundits and netizens were screaming at them that they needed to win a big state just to demonstrate that they could, they never lost their cool. They knew they could see this thing thru to victory and they did. And I think they're doing exactly the same thing now. At this point in time, I have more faith in Plouffe and Axelrod & co. than in the Monday morning quarterbacks of the internet, sorry.

Damn George Bush! Damn everyone that won't damn George Bush! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning George Bush!
Affect. Affect. Affect. (4.00 / 3)
Nothing else matters.

No one but us is at home with a flowchart, prepping for the 1NR.

Mr. and Mrs. Median Voter were promised an ignorant, because inexperienced (or inexperienced, because ignorant) half-crazed Muslim American-hating exotic rock star. Sort of half David Bowie and half Franz Fanon.

What they got was someone bucking for tenure in the Masters in Public Policy program at Enormous State University.

So it wasn't kickboxing. It was probably better for Obama that it wasn't kickboxing.

[ Parent ]
Good point. (0.00 / 0)
The Republicans may have shot themselves in the foot by painting such an outrageous picture of Obama.  When the public saw the real Obama, they were easily reassured that he was not the bogeyman.
[ Parent ]
1992. (0.00 / 0)
That's the comparison that needs to be drawn. I can't remember if there was specifically a "foreign policy" debate that year, but the issue was, when talking about international issues, could Bill Clinton inspire confidence? He could. And that pretty much settled things.

Look, guys, I guess it remains to be seen whether progress on progressive issues is easier or harder in a Democratic administration. But after the last eight years I guess I'm ready to give it a try, at least. And if Obama decides to play for a draw in one of three debates - well, why exactly is that not going to help him win?

[ Parent ]
"Winning" Isn't Enough To Win (4.00 / 1)
The problem is, the right is fully prepared to lose this election, and then sabotage an Obama presidency.  Obama has to win so convincingly that this option is closed off to them.  And this "play for a draw" strategy doesn't do it.

We are playing checkers while they are playing chess.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Aren't You Tired Of This Narrative Already??? (4.00 / 1)
For me, the question was never could Obama win.  It was whether he could govern effectively and do what needs to be done.  I don't expect him to be the messiah.  But Richard Nixon on domestic policy is not too unreasonable an expectation.

To do that he needs to (a) win convincingly, and bring a working majority of Congress with him, and (b) confront and discredit the failed policies of the past 30 years, and the narratives that support them.  I saw precious little effort to make any progress on either of those fronts.  We do not need another failed presidency.

The conservative movement plays for the long haul, and they can live with an Obama victory, 4 years of sabotage and a vicious counter-attack in the 2012 elections.  What they cannot live with is a crushing defeat that enables Obama to actually solve some of the big problems that conservatives have created for us.  And that's what I'm in the game for: a victory that actually wins something.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
What we disagree on is whether Obama could have won more (0.00 / 0)
decisively by hitting Magoo more aggressively. I seriously doubt it. Look, I don't want to get into the politics of racial stereotypes. I just think Obama impressed a lot of people last night who didn't know a lot about him going into the debate by being very knowledgeable about foreign policy crap - and by not being angry. I'm not saying that generally a good recipe for debates, I'm just saying last night it seems to have actually worked, and it probably wasn't coincidence that they tried this approach. They tested this beforehand and found that responses got more negative when Obama started hitting the cranky old white guy harder.

Damn George Bush! Damn everyone that won't damn George Bush! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning George Bush!
[ Parent ]
It's Not About Being Angry, Though (4.00 / 1)
I don't know how many kazillion times I have to say this, but Obama could have been very effective without acting the least bit angry or threatening.

The "more in sorrow than anger" approach is probably more effective, as well as suiting his inherent temperament, so the whole "angry black man" line of argument is really just a red herring.

The point is much more about a matter of focus and connecting squarely on just a few of the many opportunities that were presented.  And, as I've said before, the best suggestion--Mark's about how he should have concluded things--is something that by itself could have put the campaign away.  And it wouldn't have come across as angry at all.  In fact, it would have strengthened the connection of Obama with the audience.  "I'm being put down, the same way you all have been put down by the Bush Administration for the past 8 years" is the bonding subtext here.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
The comment above is predicated... (0.00 / 0)
...on Obama's having not been effective, a proposition that relies upon facts so far not in evidence.
[ Parent ]
Sorry, But It's Not (0.00 / 0)
It's predicated on a definition of effectiveness that Obama has repeatedly failed to even think about.  Hence my comments about us playing checkers while the movement conservatives play chess.

I have always expected Obama to win the election, and have not considered this the real challenge in this cycle.  The challenge is to win with an effective governing majority, and then to do so--to govern effectively.

Obama did fine if the goal was simply for him, indidivually, to beat McCain.  But if the goal was for him to win decisively, so that he could govern effectively, then the evidence shows that he didn't even try.

That may change in the debates to come, but it was a missed opportunity last night.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
"McCain calls Pakistan a "failed state" at the time that Pervez Musharraf took over. What!?!?!?! " (0.00 / 0)
McCain's assessment is misframed, but it's more accurate than Obama's naive view (or publicly presented view) that with all the money that the U.S. gave Musharraf, they should have 'cleaned up' NWFP.

Lesson for the debate: American politicians have little respect for Pakistan or for the people who live there.  Honestly, the debate is about whether you have to tell people before you unilaterally bomb them?

Thoroughly disappointing and angering would be, um, an understatement.  Don't crucify the rest of the world on a cross of Kissinger.

See My Comment Above (0.00 / 0)
Implicit in what I was saying was the clear recognition that Obama has now lost any semblance of the foreign policy common sense that first appealed to progressives.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
it's not just commonsense (0.00 / 0)
he was uninformed.  or decided to appear as such.
[ Parent ]
Having given up (4.00 / 3)
long ago on trying to get any new insights about actual issues via the presidential debates, I thought Obama did fine. While there was part of me that was aching at all the missed zinger opportunities, I think it was smart of Obama to play it cool. All he had to do was not mess up, and let McCain hoist his own petard (over the next few weeks, not just during the debate).

It's hard to say, of course, how McCain's "Obama doesn't seem to understand" line will play, but to me and the CNN pundits, it seemed patronizing and painfully scripted, not to mention undercut by Obama's general lucidity and command of the issues. Someone just needs to make a video of McCain's repetition of "doesn't seem to understand" spliced with Palin's Gibson and Couric interview.

The person who makes the snappiest comeback doesn't always win. (4.00 / 3)
I remember Edwards had one really good comeback in one of the debates, but it just made me dislike him more.

Obama did the most important thing which was bait McCain into anger without even giving McCain a reasonable reason to be angry.

Debates aren't really about winning with some snappy comeback.  They are about not failing as they are extremely high pressure high risk events.

McCain couldn't even manage to stay calm in a debate.  How will he stay calm when leading this country?

That's what people are going to take away emotionally I think.

The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com

It's Not The Snappiest, True (0.00 / 0)
It's the deadliest. "Where's the beef?" "There you go again!"  Over two decades later folks still remember those.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
I'd agree with that (0.00 / 0)
But it isn't the comment that seals the election.  Its the failure that leads to the comment.

Nixon's scowl, Carter's attitude, etc.  Those are the failures and those lines only appeal because people have already noticed them and made their judgment.

The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com

[ Parent ]
Can someone explain to me why Obama is so afraid to appear as if he wants to win? (0.00 / 0)
It's not that hard.  He's a f@#king politician.  He's running for President.

Is it the race thing?
Is it the youth thing?
Can he really not believe that he's in a position to win?
Is it a strategy?
Do they even know?

Differing cultural identity (4.00 / 1)
You don't think is acting that way because your cultural background values different things from his.

The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com
[ Parent ]
what (4.00 / 1)
i have no idea what that means.  As a nonwhite person, I fully understand what it means to be in elite circles without feeling like you fully belong, but, presumably, winning a Senate seat helps you get over some of those issues ;)  I mean is that what you meant - something like imposter syndrome?  Or is it just strategy - caution for cautions sake when you know that the underlying structural factors are in your favor?  It really is unbelievable - he did the same thing in the primary and as a sports fan I can tell you there's nothing more aggravating than a team that can't close the deal.
[ Parent ]
Well, Obama isn't exactly easy to pigeonhole (0.00 / 0)
He is a minority from a Midwestern white family who lived in Hawaii.  That is an unusual combination.

I suspect he does feel that he belongs due to his white family.

So it isn't fear.  It is politeness and compassion towards one's losing enemy.

I guarantee if he was losing he would do more, but it isn't really caution.  It is compassion.  

And it is what will help him in the midwest because while it annoys you it will click culturally with them and they will say "He is one of us".

The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com

[ Parent ]
compassion? (4.00 / 2)
how is it compassionate to standby and let people step on the poor.  i think it's stupidity or strategy, and i haven't decided which one.  i mean, this is a guy who once disqualified all this opponents in an election through technicalities.  he knows politics.
[ Parent ]
It isn't (0.00 / 0)
You might have noticed that Obama is winning?

The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com
[ Parent ]
you might have noticed Bush, Reagan, Clinton, and Nixon won too (0.00 / 0)
not a great measure of compassionate policymaking ;)
[ Parent ]
I'm convinced it is that cultural thing (0.00 / 0)
we talk about from time to time around here. Referencing "Albion's Seed" it would be the Quaker/Puritan culture versus the Cavalier/Borderer one. Or you can also see it as simply as working class versus middle class.

Obama is of the Quaker/Puritan/middle class tradition. He just isn't that guy that some of us are looking for, like Joe Biden whose mother told him if someone hit him, he had to break their nose if he ever wanted to be able to walk down the street again. Or Bill Clinton who would say things like "I want to see teeth on the sidewalk." Obama simply was not raised in that kind of "honor" culture and doesn't understand it.

And if our country were made up predominately of Quaker/Puritan/middle class people, he would be fine. Of course, if that were the case, Kerry would've won, too.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
what's that fist bump about then? (0.00 / 0)
just for show?  i think broad cultural explanations need to be demonstrable in the individual - i don't know that i buy the dichotomy or that he's so easily locatable (maybe because he's already spent too much time in law school / the senate).
[ Parent ]
To me the fist bump seems cosmetic. (0.00 / 0)
Like going to Rev. Wright's church.  

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
that's depressing (0.00 / 0)
but it makes sense.  obama's candidacy's appeal to people like me seems about combining the symbolism of resistance (on race for me) with a dour nonconfrtonational very senatorial approach.  sitting senators do tend to lose presidential elections, or so goes the rumour anyway :)
[ Parent ]
And the best rundown on the cultural difference (0.00 / 0)
I'm trying to talk about is here:

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-...

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
still not biting :) (0.00 / 0)
maybe i'm overtrained in political science now, but I still find Amy Waldman's explanation about bad consultants in the Democratic Party more compelling.  But,  if there is a cultural explanation for this, I think it might have to do with the Democrats moving towards and fully adapting nonconfrontationalism (which is probbaly a better word than pragmatism) over the last 15 years because the republicans (rich + patriarchy) so thoroughly won the discourse war (+ media here).

[ Parent ]
I think both explanations are true. (0.00 / 0)
I think Democrats hire the consultants they do because they are from the same tribe and feel comfortable with them.  

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
That's True, But... (0.00 / 0)
I'm not really asking Obama to change his culture.  He's obviously had enough experience in rough-and-tumble politics (Chicago, remember?) to fight hard when he has to.  And it's equally obvious that even that necessity doesn't change who he basically is.  I get that.  So most of what I wanted to see was simply connecting for solid doubles, rather than hitting piddly little grounders.  I wasn't asking him to be Hank Aaron, much less Joe Louis.

Of course I would like to see a real bare-knuckle fighter in there for us.  But I know quite well that Obama is that guy and never will be.  So what I want is for him to be a much more effective version of what he already is.

This is why, for example, I thought that Mark's suggestion was so brilliant.  It really didn't require Obama to do anything outside his comfort zone.  In fact, it was very much about carefully framing a plea that Obama has already made in the past many times over.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
I agree. (0.00 / 0)
I was just adressing the question, "why doesn't he fight?"

I don't think it's youth, race or lack of confidence. It's just that he has a different way of looking at things. In fact I'm sure that by his definition, he is fighting.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Right (4.00 / 1)
"A plastic yogurt spoon to a nuclear war," as I like to put it.

"Well, what chance does the yogurt have against the yogurt spoon?" she asked.

She had a point.  But the yogurt spoon did not.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
McCain, "Horsesh&t!" (4.00 / 3)
John McCain's lack of temper control was on clear display. As Andrew Sullivan notes, McCain says "Horsesh*t" twice clearly when Obama handed him his ass about his Spanish confusion.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlan...

It was hilarious that Biden was blanketing the airwaves knowing that there would be no Palin counterpoint.

Biden did really well with the post debate spin (4.00 / 2)
I love Biden's style, he's scrappy, a street fighter.

Obama is starting to get characterized more and more as having a "float like a butterfly, sting like a bee" style and I have to agree.

I think Obama's Hawaiian upbringing has had a different influence on him than the mainland, American style we are more accustomed to with our politicians. Obama expresses his strength, steady and ambition in a more holistic manner than the out front street fighter. It's very statesman like.

[ Parent ]
Obama may do more next debate (0.00 / 0)
Agree with Paul re: number 2.   But there will be more debates.  

On the other hand, if Obama has a commanding lead going into the next ones, he may not safely stab McCain, but be reassuring and firm, much like tonight.

Everybody wants a bloodbath.  So far, the focus groups show that Obama made good choices.  


He had a well-crafted plan (0.00 / 0)
I think this phrase makes little sense: "a fundamental lack of a well-crafted plan, but a good-enough strategic posture smoothly executed to pull out a tie, which is all he really needed at this point in time."

In fact, doing "what he needed to do at this point in time" is itself a "well-crafted plan."

Yes, Obama is following a cautious route, which I think is quite understandable given who he is and his position in this race.  He is slowly, but surely, reassuring the undecideds and independents to go his way.  This may not result in an electoral landslide (though it might), but it will probably result in a victory.

I don't care about missed opportunities to nail McCain with every available zinger.  I just want my guy to win.

What is a day without a Rosenberg Obama bash (0.00 / 1)
Hey paul, I would like to see you debate. You do a good whine and your pontificating is well crafted. I say we call for Paul to run for office and see how HIS skills match his rhetoric.

Rosenberg for WHATEVUH...I will contribute to that.

Sirota debates (4.00 / 1)
and he does a decent job.

It's time for Rosenberg to take up the mantle, in whatever forum. I suspect a number of colleges would love to hear Rosenberg debate some right-wing blogger such as Erick Erickson.

[ Parent ]
I Gladly Accept Contributions! (0.00 / 0)
So that's a start!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
The one that really bugged me was tax cuts (0.00 / 0)
McCain made a snide comment about Obama being a recent convert on earmarks.  I immediately thought Obama should come back with McCain's saying we could not  afford Bush's tax cuts back when we had a surplus but now that the economy is in the tank he is for them.  Talk about being a recent convert.  

That being said I thought Obama did fine but could have done better.  I think, because of both his race and age, he is walking a very fine line on how aggressive to be.  Its like walking a tightrope while being pelted with ping pong balls you have to catch and throw back.  Its much easier to sit on the couch and come up with snappy comebacks.

Sean Penn? Pacifica Radio? (0.00 / 1)
Hey Paul --- this is AMERICA, okay?  But maybe you're right: Obama sucks and that's all there is to it; might as well stay home on Nov. 4.  Say hi to Stoller for us at the Free Mumia rally.  And oh yeah: NO BAILOUT!  401-Ks are for geezers anyway and screw them and their retirements!  
May I Suggest A Remedial Reading Class? (2.00 / 2)
Continuing education is a good thing.

Obama's lack of foreign policy vision still puts him miles ahead of McCain's dementia.  I never said anything about not voting for him.

I'm simply underscoring that what's being offered on the policy level is not very much of a choice.

Aggressively showing off your ignorance plays much better on the right than it does around here.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Other misses (4.00 / 1)
Obama did accomplish his primary objective, which was to establish he's ready/able to handle the job and went a long way to allay the fears of those who have doubts. That said, a few other missed opportunities:

* Lies -- A number of times Obama tried to correct McCain's lying but never effectively, let alone memorably, pivoted his response to the issue of McCain's veracity and trustworthiness. They've been lying with impunity. The media knows it, has even reported it. Obama did nothing to make that part of the debate storyline.

* Iraq -- McCain repeated derided timetables and equated Obama's position with 'losing' and Obama never pointed out that Maliki, Bush -- everyone but John McCain -- agrees with timetables. It's only McCain who wants to stay for 100 years. (Heard on MSNBC in the background as I type this that one debate poll had McCain better than Obama on handling Iraq. That's not good.)

* Accountability -- As I mentioned in a comment above, the response to McCain's riff on accountability should have been to frame the election as an accountability moment: Hold them accountable and make a change or reward them with another four years.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans

Basically, I Agree Across the Boards (0.00 / 0)
It's just that for me, the "primary objective" was never really in doubt.  We know he's ready, and we know he's shown that over and over and over again--just not to this wide an audience before.  So I was taking that part for granted.

Which is not to say it was unimportant.  You have to tie your shoelaces if you want to win the race.  But it's not the real challenge.

Your other points I agree with 100%.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Agreed, sort of... (0.00 / 0)
While I expected Obama to do well and we've seen it done before, the debate is a unique, important moment for leaners and undecideds who haven't seen it. On a stage like this, where every little miscue can be spun to determine the election one way or another, until it's actually accomplished you can never say there's no doubt. Even great debaters have bad nights. Note that McCain had that "is he ready to lead" ad ready to fill with debate content and all they had was the lame "John is right" nonsense.

I just thought it was important to note that amid the various "missed opportunity" commentaries there ought to be some acknowledgment that the primary objective was accomplished flawlessly.  

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans

[ Parent ]
A Fine Line (0.00 / 0)
It was suppose to be a civil debate - not Hardball. There is a difference.

I've watch several of these debates and whenever Obama has been seen as aggressive the "pundits" have pointed it out and it has not been been good for him.

He may hit McCain harder in the next debate, but this first one needed to show him on an even keel so all the pundits were talking about nasty McCain was and how he sneered and never made eye contact etc.... instead of Obama.

Yes, I know nice guys finish last but that is why Biden is on the ticket and we will see it with his debate. Let Biden take any heat for being "mean".

Hello-oh! (0.00 / 0)
But in this debate, McCain's attacks were over the top.   That left a lot more room for Obama to act tougher.

Besides, I'm not really asking for him to be "tougher," so much as just being more on the ball. I've said repeatedly that I have no problem with Obama delivering his comebacks in softened "more in sorrow than in anger" mode.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
"Missed Opportunities" (0.00 / 0)
I'm not sure I buy that line of thought. A lot of pundits and those on the left seemed to want Obama to hit McCain harder, but the focus polling afterward seems to confirm the Obama campaign's instinct that the time was better spent informing the voters of the very popular positions Obama holds then it would have been spent going after McCain harder.

In these debates, the more aggressive a candidate gets, often, the more they annoy the voters they are most trying to reach.

Addendum (0.00 / 0)
I see in the comments above you are not as focused on 'tougher' or 'harder' but, as I read it, instead making sure to powerfully counter distortions.

I see the logic, but do not necessarily agree. I see the logic in keeping the message mostly positive and to focus on coming off as dignified and 'presidential'. The most important task for Obama was to pass some amorphous 'ready-to-be-president' test in voters' heads. To win, McCain needs to disqualify Obama with a lot of voters. I think by refusing to be personally dragged into the muck and giving solid, knowledgeable, substantive answers, Obama muted McCains strongest remaining attack.

On a tangent: I disagree with the logic that a lie has to be counteracted immediately at the debate. In fact, I think that is the job of surrogates after the debate and on the trail (and I hope they hit McCain hard on them). All of the McCain lies can be beat to death by other people without risking making Obama look small or petty.

[ Parent ]
We're Getting There (0.00 / 0)
But I'm still not getting my points across as clearly as I'd hoped.

I'm not saying that all the lies have to be countered.  Indeed, trying to do so would involve the kind of shift in tone and direction that I'm not calling for.  I'm just saying that with so many of them out there, Obama should have knocked a couple of them out of the park.  With deepest regret, if he wanted to add that.

The one exception, the one lie that I think really demanded refutation was the one that Mark addressed.  And I think that using Mark's proposed conclusion to the debate would have done nothing to contradict the overall effect that Obama was aiming for.  Indeed, it would have been the perfect conclusion for it.


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
You have summarized perfectly (0.00 / 0)
why I could not bear to watch the debate. I KNEW it would turn out more or less exactly as it did, and I would be alternating between cringing and shouting at the TV.

Now the Biden/Palin debate, that one I have to watch. That is going to be an ass whipping.

Montani semper liberi

"The Homework Ate My Dog" -- Obligatory Post-Debate Diary #s 12 & 35 | 108 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox