Debate Prep #1: On Guard Against McCain

Friday's national security debate will take on a certain surreal quality, what with the financial crisis preoccupying both campaigns. But Sen. Obama is prepping amidst the chaos, and as a public service to him, I am writing this the first of a series of debate prep checklists of possible McCain lines of attack. Notice to McCain camp: Obama allies know what you are considering and what traps you are trying to set!

My next post will provide Sen. Obama my take on the likely questions he may be asked by Jim Lehrer (I've been reading previous presidential debate transcripts). And my third will recommend lines of attack against McCain.

The "Commander-in-Chief" Judgment Test & Iraq: Beware of McCain's plan to leverage the Iraq surge's success and your opposition to it as an attack on the honor and valor of the U.S. military. McCain will assert that your election will create a "crisis of confidence" in the U.S. military given your position on the surge. McCain will also try to "disqualify" you as an effective CinC given your lack of military service. He will try to equate your opposition to the surge as a failure to understand the real stakes in the struggle against "radical Islamic extremism" (see more below on this topic).

The "3am Wake Up Call": McCain may be accorded by Lehrer the opportunity to turn to you and ask a "doomsday" type of question such as explain how would you react if you were called by your national security advisor and told that the civilian leadership in Pakistan had been killed in a suicide bomb or that Israel has attacked Iran's nuclear installations.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee: You know McCain will haul out the canard that you failed to convene any hearings as Chairman of the European Subcommittee and that is indicative of how little you cared about foreign policy when you were accorded the responsibility and he will rattle off a number of European crises to drill the point home.

Summits With Adversaries/Iran: You already know that McCain will attack you on your stated willingness to meet with adversaries. But he may go a step further and assert that your embrace of tough diplomacy is nothing more than semantics to camouflage the controversy. McCain will try to trap you into sounding more tentative about how you would handle Iran's nuclear program and what you would do if you were told that Iran had developed a nuclear weapon. He will equate your opposition to the overthrow of Saddam as an indication that you would be reluctant to use force against Iran despite your statements to the contrary.

Russia: McCain will assert that during the Georgia crisis your attentions were elsewhere and tentative in your response. He will try to lure you into an argument whether Georgia should become a full-fledged member of NATO. He will also challenge you on your position opposing Russia's removal from the G-8 group of democratic nations and assert that consequently you do not appreciate the gravity of Vladimir Putin's threats against Eastern Europe.

China: Beware of the Taiwan defense question with respect to China. McCain will try to trip you up on the Shanghai Declaration by claiming you do not understand the complexity of the U.S. - China relationship.

Bin Laden & Al Qaeda: Ironically, the "I will pursue Bin Laden to the gates of hell" McCain will assert that U.S. attacks on Al Qaeda and the Taliban inside Pakistani territory have destabilized Pakistan's government and you are a proponent of such attacks without understanding how important it is to preserve our alliance with Pakistan.

The Middle East/Iraq: McCain will contest your priorities in the Middle East. He will assert that had you had your way Al Qaeda would have taken over in Iraq and that you are going to commit the same errors Clinton committed in zealously pushing a Middle East peace process and negotiations with Syria (catering to those FL undecided voters no doubt). He will try to trip you up into refusing to assert that the real enemy in the region is "Radical Islamic Extremism" and that your refusal to use the phrase is testament to your misunderstanding of the nature of the enemy we face.

United Nations: McCain will try to paint you out as a naïve multilateralist who would place the future of U.S. security back in the hands of an institution that opposes U.S. interests.

Preemptive Unilateralism: McCain will assert that the U.S. must reserve the right to preemptively attack a country if it constitutes a "clear and present danger" to U.S. security and assert your opposition to this version of the Bush Doctrine will leave the U.S. weaker and that this proves you will never be willing to stand up to Iran.

Trade: McCain will claim your opposition to free trade will cost American jobs and an example of your being captive of special interests in Washington. He will try to show how your trade pact hesitation proves that you really reject one of the great legacies of the Clinton Administration.

Global Financial Crisis: McCain will come prepared with a laundry list of "to dos" to solve the international financial system and claim you have no plan to deal with it.

North Korea: North Korea claims it is rebuilding its nuclear reactor and McCain will claim that the U.S. must do everything possible, including the use of military force, to stop North Korea's nuclear program, and you may be pressed on this issue, as well.

I realize that this is merely a representative list of the lines of attack, and that Sen. Obama's expertly able debate preparation team is hopefully considering the same lines of attack, but just in case they may be missing one or two laundry list items...I hope this helps.

Comments

[MarcoEsquandolas]

can we, at some point, get rid of the phrase 'Radical Islamic Extremism' once and for all? maybe replace it with 'Radical Old White Guy Armageddonism'? It really is a joke....it's as if these people don't realize that Vikings and Native Americans were here before us....that the rest of the world isn't as white as their brethern in Kansas, and if they don't look fast, they'll realize that whites'll be a minority in this country in a couple of decades...i can't help but think that McCain and his ilk grew up in a time when they saw countless images of the aforementioned native americans, and whoever else, played by white guys in the movies or tv...i know it's a bit off topic but also valid....this country will never be free or great until the old christian white guys who've been at the reins for 250 years realize that their time has come...and if 'someone' needs to make that point for them once and for all, i'm all for it. i mean, every once in a while the castle needs to be stormed (apologies to the princess bride)

[Saru]

I think its another one of those "Bush-Terms" you know like "Time Horizon"

[OneLiberalLady]

I for one am extremely troubled by McCain's role in goading Georgia into provoking Russia, and by McCain's close (I looked into his eyes...) relationship with the President of Georgia which arguably has greatly clouded McCain's judgment. On foreign policy, McCain seems more of a neo-con than a realist, an interventiist than a diplomacist. We could be looking at Bush, but with even less impulse control.
McCain does not seem to see shades of grey in foreign relations.

[research]

McCain instigate Georgia's attack that killed 4000 Ossetians and welcome Russian peacekeepers.

While getting money as a Lobbyist!

[whitebird46]

Now close your eyes and imagine Sarah responding to the above points in any kind of coherent way.
Pictures can lie (photo-op at UN) but My Fair Lady has a loooooong way to go to respond intelligently during her debate.

[tuttlemsm]

Note to Obama: Don't forget to point out that one of the most profoundly important foreign policy decisions has already been made: the selection of a heavyweight like Joe Biden as your running-mate as opposed to a lightweight like Palin.

[ExternalObserver]

Great point.

[mwilliams]

Absolutely. And the planned Biden speech on foreign policy tomorrow will set the stage for this line of argument at the debate. The Obama team is on it.

[LMBM]

Senator McCain will assume a mantle of superiority in this debate, as though by right. Senator Obama must not concede to that either in words or demeanor. Most particularly, he should make no to reference to JM's military service or experience as a POW. Senator Obama has always been fully and properly deferential in appreciating JM's service, but he cannot do that in this debate without undermining his own position. He must concede noting in this debate.

[matt1996]

Exactly. Look at the GOP primary debate footage at the Reagan Library where Romney sounded completely weak and muddled when he kept repeating that he would discuss the issue of torture first with McCain before deciding what limit he would impose on U.S. interrogators.

I love this kind of inside baseball stuff by-the-way and think the HuffPost should create a whole section of the site where users can discuss the debates, create lists of possible gotcha questions and possible answers and great zingers, one liners and general tactics and strategy we would recommend.

[decolonizeme]

All you have to do is tell McCain is that you can see Russia from your house.

[matt1996]

See, THAT would be a great zinger. Although I think Obama would be insane to bring up Palin on his own. If McCain is stupid enough to bring up Palin than I think Obama would then be smart to try that kind of comeback.

I definitely think he should play up McCain not knowing his Sunni from his Shiite, not knowing what countries Iraq shares a border with, etc. Not in a harsh 'you're old and befuddled' way, but in a lighthearted stilleto way like Palin did so effectively in her acceptance speech about Obama.

[Indie2008]

It was painful to watch John MCCain's brief news conference today on the economic crisis. He didn't project the image of a man ready to assume the presidency. He appeared ill at ease answering the few questions posed to him, and seemed out of his element.

[vulvina]

More McCain attacks--

He will challenge you to hate war more than he does. You will say there is no way to prove that. And you will note that working constantly for pre-emptive peace kind of cancels that out. Fight when necessary, but be looking to solve things without violence.

He will ding you for not serving in uniform. You say some of our most successful war presidents never did, either.

He will say his experience by being involved in most national security crises in the last 25 years is more than qualified while you have nothing. You will ask, Senator Mc, which of those crises was solved successfully and do you want to claim responsibility for them. After all, some of them were disasters and you were, sir, only in Congress.

He will hit you for your temperament. You will suggest that thoughtful deliberation, rather than screaming and turning red, is probalby better.

He will claim that Sarah Pail has met 6 foreign leaders. You will double over laughing.

[Karnameru]

Hey, you are good at this...

[Tasies]

I'm an Obama supporter but any US presidential debate based on national security is usually a farce. They'll use Iran as a whipping boy despite the lack of evidence of any nuclear build up. They'll exploit Iran's rhetoric and ignore Israeli action (expansionism and colonizati­on).They'l­l naturally fawn over Israel and justify every Israeli action as self defense. They'll demonize any Latin American attempt at unification and nationalization of its resources. They'll also justify Georgia's aggression against Ossetia and demonize Rusia.

Again, just a farce based on misinformation and manipulation.

[matt1996]

I interned for Nancy Soderberg, former UN representative, who I hope is helping Obama with debate prep. She was working for Sen. Kennedy at the time, as was Gregory Craig, who I know is playing McCain during debate prep. These two are nothing if not thorough. Obama will be well armed. It will all come down to delivery. Obama has learned a lot in the past year about debating. If he can cut out the 'uhhs' and tighten up his answers and project confidence and assurance, he will win.

[DebbieinPhx]

Question from Obama as rebuttal to McCain's fluff... "So a failure in foreign policy.. would that be anything on the level of disinviting a current European Prime Minister to the White House, via an interview with his country's biggest paper, indicating that he and his country are no longer considered Allies of the the United States, thus setting off a political storm of disapproval that would be carried in every major European paper and send shockwaves of disapproval through out the world... all merely because as President, I failed to realize I was speaking to a European prime minister and not a South American dictator? Or would the failure be that once realizing my error exponetially compounding the problem by denying that I made a mistake and instead brashly and ignorantly forging ahead, instisting that I MEANT to gravely insult our (now former) ally? Would that not be a foreign policy failure, Senator McCain?"

[zendem1]

Here's what you'll hear from Grampa:

"My friends," alot.
"i spent 51/2 years in a prison cell.
"The surge worked and we're going to win."
"We must protect israel."
"I've been the voice for change in my 26 years in the Senate."
"I took on my own party."
"We must protect seniors."
"We must change Washington."

[DeeDeeDaGumby]

You forgot "Country First"

[johnsopinion]

I think your first statement above, "Friday's national security debate will take on a certain surreal quality"
will probably be the most accurate statement after the dust settles.

Surreal? You bet.
McCain's whole campaign has been surreal.
I used to like Republicans. I was one....... once. And then Nixon came along.
But of late, with the surreal waffling of McCain on, well, on everything, and the
childish actions of the current crop of Republicans abetting the financial crisis,
I have lost whatever respect I ever had for Republicans. All of it.

[profounddogs]

Profoundly put!

[BillCarson]

>I used to like Republicans. I was one....... once. And then Nixon came along

Yep. For me it took the Reaganites. This is not "your father's Republican party".

[keepenit]

People, get real here...this is a very tight election and with everything going against McCain (war, bush, economy, etc.), the fact that it is still to close to call should worry us. Ever watch a football game where one team fumbles three times, gets picked off twice, allows a special team score and gives up a defensive touchdown, yet is tied going into the 4th quarter? That's Team McCain. His double reverse flea flicker VP choice worked and if I’d have to call it, momentum is on his side. The above article may look like it’s right from a Republican playbook, but if you look deeper, there is a little truth in every statement. Obama faces a real risk in this debate and if I had to bet, my money would be on McCain. Let’s face it, all JM has to say is "Have you ever been in a war? I have, and I never want anyone else to experience what I did..." and he will win the hearts of the American people. It's that simple. Obama was smart to make his weakest area (national security) the focus of the first debate. It will give him and his team time to make up for a defeat. And if he does lose, or even tie, it won’t help to have the Clintons jabbing at him daily (“I told you so”) . Nor will it help to have a running mate stating something like “he could have done better.”

[Beranek]

You need to expound upon this before I give you any credit for your (mis-informed) diatribe:

"Obama was smart to make his weakest area (national security) the focus of the first debate."

You seem to be forgetting that McCane sees Spain as an adversary and that he thinks that the Prime Minister is the head of some South American junta. I guess that we should go to war with Spain again--I'm sure we can find a plethora of Yellow Journalists to aid the cause.

You seem to be conveniently passing over the fact that Mr. Senior Moment thinks that "victory" is just around the corner in Iraq and that his running mate still thinks that the center of terrorism is in this country (or, maybe, that we will be there for the next hundred years--or maybe his mind will change to something else during the debate).

And maybe you think that sabre-rattling over diplomacy is the wave of the future when every other civilized, Western nation has the opposite view and are practicing what they preach.
Yeah. McCain as the wise, old sage on national security and foreign relations.
Good try, keepenit, but you're talking to adults here.

[keepenit]

US at war with Spain under McCain? Wow, that's way, way out there. Let's just say I don't think that's going to happen and I’ll leave it at that.

As for it "Victory" in Iraq...that's a tough one to pin down, as nobody seems to know what that really means. I sure don't. And I have not heard anyone else give a rational explanation of what “Victory” will look like. My guess is some folk (McCain, Bush), will claim victory at different times. Others (Pelosi, Obama) will never admit to a victory as long as there is wide-spread violence. I’m not saying either definition is right, just saying I don’t know. Maybe it will be like that old saying “I don’t know how to define it but I know it when I see it.”

As for Saber-rattling diplomacy, one thing I do know is that it’s one of the few options the US has left. For years we've threatened economic sanctions, but let’s face it, today there is little that can’t be purchased from others countries. Nations still fear our military but not our sanctions. Other Western nations don’t practice “Saber-rattling diplomacy” because they can’t.

I’d like to see Obama win this election, but I’m not blind enough to think that McCain can pull it out. Comments like “Mr. Senior Moment” only energize the republicans. In sports, that’s called “bulletin board” material and I wish the folks on this board practiced less of it.

[BillCarson]

>Obama was smart to make his weakest area (national security) the focus of the first debate. It will give him and his team time to make up for a defeat.

What? Historically, the first debate is the most important and influential to voters. It won't be till the third debate that they discuss the economy, and by then most people have made up their minds.

Whether it was a mistake to do national security first, I guess we'll know on Friday.

[MadeinAmericaProud]

I agree with a lot of your comments.

However, please keep in mind, Paulson with the republican administration quick hurry up sign off all your congress powers to me, and Dobbs saying not so fast to Bush and Paulson
and conflict if interest Goldman S behind the curtain#3.

That still need time horizon (time lines) to beat the bushes to see what else will fall out that will cost more than $1 trillion, wiping the next 10 generations futures.

[Beranek]

One, glaring problem with your pre-analysis: You're assuming that McCain will be in possession of all of his marbles. My pre-analysis? There will be several senior moments from the Old White-Haired-Guy's mouth. He will lose his temper over the slightest insinuation. He will either fall asleep or look at his watch half way through the debate (maybe both).
Expect the expected and the unexpected.

[pacodog]

I wish, but no, that is incorrect. He is a master at sound bites and lying to the people. Republicans are masters of the fear technique so I would expect McCain to win this debate. The media won't debate what the goals of the surge were, they will just accept McCain's assertion that it worked and Obama didn't believe in it...end of story.

[Beranek]

Expect the expected and the unexpected.

[dayala]

underestimating McCain would be a fatal mistake for Obama, McCain maybe old but he's no slouch when it comes to defending his war record. He's been playing that card for 26 years and is adept and skilled at using it to position himself.

Obama needs to answer, " there are many ways to serve one's country you chose the military I chose working in my community to help people...blah, blah , blah."

Clinton and Cheney never served in the military either...your point?

[matt1996]

xactly. There are many ways to skin the cat.

[matt1996]

If I were both of these guys I would not wear a watch to any debate. You know how long the debate is. You have all those lights and bells to tell you when your time is up. Resist the temptation.

[C-Bob]

McCain's attack that "the surge has worked" is his strong suit. This is true even though any well-informed person knows that only the military portion has "worked". Obama should first restate that the military has done their end of the bargain, as no one ever doubted they would.

But rather than continue to dispute that this wasn't the surge's purpose, Obama should hammer on the point that al-Maliki agrees to the same withdrawal timetable. He can then ask McCain what no one yet has: what is this "victory" you're on about, and how is it different from the democratically elected government of Iraq asking us to leave?

[viper234]

Better still why doesn't Obama just make the point that McCain has been trying to reframe the history of Iraq War as "The Surge," as though everything prior to "The Surge" did not happen. Obama should list the number of American casualties, the number of civilian casualties, the cost of the war in real dollars, the fact that we are finding the money to rebuild Iraq while our infrastructure erodes and our economy melts down, that John McCain voted for the war without the necessary intelligence and in so doing helped create a grave foreign policy and national security blunder scar this country and the rest of the world for years to come. He shouldn't take any of this "victory is in sight," nonsense from McSurge. Even St. General David Petearus said the word "victory" was not a word that could be applied to any resolution to the conflict in Iraq.

[RStar]

That's precisely what Obama will do, and it's precisely why Obama laid "the surge worked beyond my wildest dreams" trap on Fox News.